Is this pedantic and is there any point?
Taken on a client recently from another firm. It's only a small concern in any case.
However, the previous adviser appears to have claimed AIA on items introduced (per their schedule provided) on 06/04/2005... the majority of which are labelled "building works" (for a garage used to store Stock I believe).
Obviously this isn't correct. The client says the works and assets noted were indeed bought some time ago.
No tax is at stake as a loss was made (and not relieved). Just seems a bit silly and gives me discomfort over the other figures/affairs.
Should I bother making an issue of it?
- Coding Notice 147 4
- Client RTI Shows payments not his 128 3
- UK company paying dividend to foreign shareholder 111 2
- Alerting clients versus walking away from clients 430 7
- Vat 270 7
- SA online - 4 hour limit 1,269 13
- Are there Special Rules for Agencies? 338 7
- Why should I retain membership? 2,702 46
- Recharge for private use of a company car 185 3
- Funding Circle Servicing Fee 154 2
- Surprise visit from HMRC! 2,482 18
- CT/CIS offset 136 2
- Statutory accounts, current company address, or one that was correct at EOY? 186 4
- Trade name 187 3
- Musician - Allowable Travel expenses 138 1
- New business - journal entries 319 20
- B2B vat in the EU 125 2
- Stamp duty on multiple property transaction 317 18
- VAT on deposits 209 2
- VAT clearance for determining the correct rate to apply 140 1
- Auto enrolment excuses 808
- Feedback on accounts production software for IFRS 710
- Add T&Cs to Sales Order in Sage 390
- Social investment tax relief 208
- Digita Hosted Software 203
- Call Centre Data Costs 193
- Buying goods in US and selling them to company in US 162
- Travel costs and contractors 156
- Problems with Sage 50 Payroll v21(2015) 148
- Certificates of tax deposit 140