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?
- Giving a seminar 615 33
- Boffin of the Year 106 6
- Has anyone been told of the extra Sage Payroll fees for auto enrolment? 438 9
- Altered PAYE cheque 425 9
- PAYE versus Dividends 102 1
- equipment rental 59 1
- Flat Rate Scheme 362 16
- Non sequitur 138 1
- Playstation 4 - Allowable expense or not? 3,183 63
- Distance between Postcodes in Excel 568 11
- Employer pension contribution as part of redundancy package 118 3
- Incorrect Generic non-filing notice 257 9
- Am i Liable? 781 19
- Joint Filing Help 162 3
- Missed Student Loan Contributions 235 8
- audit for 50% associate? 88 2
- Contingent Asset Disclosure 99 5
- Write off of former director's loan 805 12
- HMRC Appeals 125 1
- RTI 339 11
- Desperately seeking Susan, Sam or anyone with any other name 1,278
- Experience with Islamic investor following Sharia-compliant rules? 629
- Darwinpay Partnership Assessment 416
- S464A Charge to tax: conferring benefit & BIK 325
- Quirky thread of the year: Community Awards 242
- Alphabet shares 212
- Agent fees to sell business 205
- ACCA continuity of practice arrangement needed 200
- Office recharges 161
- Tax position on lease extension 156