AMLS renewal fee is £130 for each single-premises practice with >£5K turnover.
This is increasing to £300 per premises from 1 May 2019.
Is a 230% increase fair for small practices with a few clients?
Related resources
Replies (13)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Ignoring the percentage of the increase for a moment, what do you think would be a 'fair' fee?
£130 was probably too cheap.
Edit: also, the OP states the fee is for t/o < £5k. Ive just looked it up (ICAEW do ours so I didn't know the HMRC rates) and that's the charge for all businesses but <£5k get a small business discount - so in fact it's the fee for > £5k.
If it helps discourage a few cowboy bookeepers pretending to be accoutants then I say put it up to a grand!
If it helps discourage a few cowboy bookeepers pretending to be accoutants then I say put it up to a grand!
And that works how? Bookkeepers to TB are also bound by the regs.
The cowboy bookeepers and indeed cowboy accountants probably don't pay the fee at all in the first instance.
It begs three questions. Is the service currently running at a loss and HMRC have to increase fees by 230% to break even.
Alternatively, will HMRC improve efficiency and ensure the service is fit for purpose? Last year it was taking 9 months to get approval and emails were taking 16 days to be answered. I don't know how long the wait is now as my renewal only went in 3 weeks ago.
After increased fees, will the service be running at cost, or are HMRC looking to make a profit from this service.
And it's not just accountants and bookkeepers, it's all businesses that have to be MLR registered, the fit and proper person fee is also increasing by 50% to £150
Is it not because the new governing body charge all the supervising bods a hefty fee, which they now pass on.
So the increase is say £80 to cover that cost and the rest for the increase for them to actual manage it.
Is it not because the new governing body charge all the supervising bods a hefty fee, which they now pass on.
So the increase is say £80 to cover that cost and the rest for the increase for them to actual manage it.
Who are the new Governing body? A quick Google tells me it's the Treasury but that info may be out of date.
Fair?
Seems fair to me.
They should probably charge more really and speed things up.
I have no objection to paying the increased fee if that reflects the cost, but I'm doubtful. 2 years ago there was a 30% hike and a £100 new application fee. No issues there but I believed they also radically cut back staff at the same time, and you ended up with a 9 month delay and a 16 day reply to emails. Or maybe it was just the shift to online and they weren't equipped to handle it.
Is the increase because they realised they can't run it on a shoestring and does it now reflect the true cost of running the service? My only insight there is that it ran perfectly well at £100 a year before 2017.
Having been 'supervised' by both hmrc and a governing body I fail to see what hmrc supervision consists of.
It's just another form of taxation. They just take the fee, add your name to their online list and run.
It doesn't resolve the money laundering situation.
Acting ethically will help the ML situation, assuming the powers that be follow up the leads.
Those who don't act ethically in the industry will be the ones who have not registered in the first place. Would be interested to know if hmrc have fined anyone for not being registered.
Those who don't act ethically in the industry will be the ones who have not registered in the first place. Would be interested to know if hmrc have fined anyone for not being registered.
I really should stop agreeing with you!! Your post was absolutely spot on but yes, I was reading an article today where HMRC had fined someone, but they lost on appeal due to the poor wording of the 2007 MLR regs.
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/hmrc-policy/tax-adviser-escapes-mone...
Thanks for the link John.
Wish I has more than 5 minutes a day to read more info on here, I've missed a few articles and posts this year.
I need staff. Or to dump some clients. Or just retire.