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?
- Is my client risking reputational damage? 167 6
- Can i reclaim tax if my fuel cost more than the AFR in a company car 126 2
- Sage line 50 payment before invoice date 180 11
- Performance measurement within accounting practice 243 4
- Best Tax / Accounts Production software 367 10
- Property Purchase in Daughters Name 312 9
- Merging my businesses 107 2
- Where has Portia gone? 1,567 61
- Getting fees, getting harder? 3,693 73
- Spousal transfer and PPR 512 16
- VAT on commercial property 127 3
- Rogue Accountant 3,019 49
- deceased creditor 187 5
- Corporate member of LLP 276 1
- Investment company 267 6
- Error or mistake in CT return 335 1
- Penalty on dormant CT600 prior to trading 217 1
- HMRC computer behind the times 371 3
- Sage & IRIS Payroll Employee ID. Problem Using Old Ee ID's? 106 1
- Transfer of stock 365 12
- Services via intermediaries and new HMRC reporting requirements 781
- RTI - duplicate employee record 533
- Pensions Regulator 444
- How hard is it to reduce a code? 404
- Sage Vat return box 2 306
- Sanzar 303
- Digital marketing focus group 284
- How do you do it 273
- Kashflow balance sheet difference 249
- Portia ... Where art thou 244