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 Dropbox right for your client comms? Webinar 15 May 306
- Set up a company pension 258
- 2011 FHL loss & ITA 2007 s74a 227
- RTI Fees 216
- Where's our 10%? 199
- HMRC Lost PAYE Clients 199
- Driving sales growth 193
- EIS 187
- Regiatration of a Trust 183
- Cost of converting property - who pays? 182
- UK Property Purchase by an overseas individual in own name 181
- CIS late registration 167
- Accounting for gift vouchers - paid for and donated 164
- Best structure 164
- Inorporation using S165 gift relief 160
- Break up basis accounting 160
- Mortgage application for intending director. 153
- Property owned privately 153
- Membership of trade association - tax deductible? 140
- Companies in administration - Bad debt and VAT 132
I'm not sure of the generally accepted practice for this, but...