Any idea how many accountants are into the S and M scene ? Judging by the replies in Any Answers, the proportion is abnormally high. So many respondents seem to relish the prospect of giving their clients a jolly good thrashing.
" How dare you ask me to help reduce your tax burden - bend over." ; or " Employing your wife in your company ? You naughty boy - I'm going to have to punish you " or " Trying to claim a legitimate business expense, are you ? Well, let's see what Madame Whiplash in HMRC has to say about that "
Many questions are answered along these lines by practitioners who seem to delight in seeing their clients pay more tax.
It's quite extraordinary.
Come on guys, own up. How many of you long for hand cuffs, latex and the cruel - oh so cruel, but rewarding - strictures of firm and unreasonable discipline ?
I'm expecting a stampede. The number of hits on this question should be revealing.
Mike Bassy
Replies (6)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
But are they deductable?
There always seems to be some sort of adjustment related to whether there was any personal use of the items. Clearly, if we are using whips and leather underwear, we are getting some personal enjoyment. But if they are only deployed during business hours and on clients, then even if we derive personal enjoyment from the use of such implements, they would be 100% deductable.
I advise my clients to have a second personal-use only set that they can show the HMRC should they question the business use of the items.
value for money
There is another reason to give up an arguement with HMRC and that is because they sometimes argue over relatively small amounts - to the point where you give up because it is cheaper for the client to pay the tax than to pay your fees for continuing what you may consider to be a very strong arguement.
an opinion
The accountants Mike refers to in his many posts on this topic who are “spineless” etc in dealing with HMRC (without good reason) are in my view simply a subset of incompetent accountants. These people need to be dealt with, but not in any different way from any other person who is professionally negligent.
There are simply too many incompetent people in practice offering accountancy services. I don’t say accountants, because in many cases they may not be qualified by examination, in which case I prefer to call them bookkeepers.
My evidence is the number of people posing questions on this website along the lines of:
“My client is doing X [something simple] - what are the tax implications?” or
“My client is doing X [something simple]. I think the tax implications are Y [Y being completely wrong].”
Now, I imagine (or at least hope) that most of these people are not professionally qualified in any relevant way (although some of them undoubtedly are). But whether qualified or not, they are clearly way out of their depth, advising and CHARGING clients for matters about which they do not have even the remotest clue and in respect of which they may not be insured in the event of a [***] up. A client in my view is entitled (unless explicitly told and warned otherwise) that the person he is paying has the expertise to deal with the matters he is being paid for to a minimum reasonable standard without recourse to a free-to-post website. Many people appear to be using this board as an unpaid tax adviser to their own practice on almost a weekly basis.
My other evidence (I am a CA and a CTA) is that because I work as a tax adviser in a law practice I see tax advice from accountants on a day-to-day basis and occasionally I have to deal with professional negligence actions against them. Some of the incompetence is spine tingling (even people in the Big 4 get it wrong) and more importantly, the capacity of ignorant or unqualified people knowingly to sail into the maelstrom of tax law without the equivalent of even a compass or a rudder is frankly unbelievable.
What appear from the outside to be spineless accountants may indeed be spineless (or more probably people who are simply way out of their depth) , or may in fact be competent and dealing professionally with client business, but the justifiable reason for the apparent spinelessness is not apparent.
But I do agree with Mike that the people who without good reason and simply through ignorance or laziness accede to everything that HMRC say or threaten need to take a good look at themselves and consider whether they are competent to practise at all.
Oh - one PS here. I did once live about 300m away from Miss Whiplash (of the tax case) in Earls Court, but not being aware of her existence, never used her professional services.......
Cannon and Ball?
Mike Bassy and Roger Rabbitt - what a double act! (It's just a little predictable)
Come on, Roger, at least Mike's developed a sense of humour.
Bright accountant
Thanks for your contribution, if not your spelling, but I am making the assumption that by mentioning Cannon and Ball you are from the Midlands or the North of England, and if this assumption is correct I am pleased to be able in future to ignore you.