Contributions from the AccountingWEB.co.uk editorial team.
Thanks for the initial feedback. Glad you're enjoying it so far.
Obviously, as with any new site, there will be a few teething problems but we're getting to them as quickly as we can and then it'll be full steam ahead!
Keep us posted if you come up against any issues and keep the feedback coming too!
More blackberry users than I expected to see give our stats - but that's why it's good to get in contact with you all i guess!
iPhone users can currently access the normal (scaled down) site via their device but blackberry and a selection of older 'smartphones' see a heavily cut down version of the actualy site using simpler temlpates as less styling.
I will apologise in advance to blackberry users as some of the more attractive graphics effects and transitions are simply not supported by the blackberry - but I imagine you will be used to not getting the full experience from various sites. If it wasn't for the nice tight microsoft exchange support blackberry has historically held over other devices I don't think I would use one myself... and once our IT team roll out the iPhone integration (as I'm sure many other people are considering or have done) i think they will find the market increasingly tough! but i digress...
Thanks for all the replies. I will gather your details from your profiles and hopefully provide a link early next week.
Any nokia/android users want to join in?
Also - @ the two ipad users. Although we will be looking into solutions to make the most our whole portfolio on the iPad we will be initially targetting the webapp at mobile devices only as the user interface does not really scale well to the iPad screen (although it obviously functions in the same way)... I think the best way to take advantage of the iPad would be to consider it in future standard web designs and have future version of AccountingWEB simply more friendly to a greater number of devices - but we'll see what happens :o)
Thanks Euan, that's as I thought............It just seems odd that one is taxable and the other not?
Not quite a heart attack just yetI hope my comments didn't portray a panicked individual running around franticly looking for his passport as that is certainly not the case.
I am however, amazed that such a claim should be made, not only because my colleague did feel a little harassed but imagine what else HMRC collectors are saying to leverage money out of people.
In Penny's first response she actually states that the letter is not stating that the liability is the Company Secretary’s but that HMRC just want to talk. I do not argue this but the comments made by the collector was the worrying bit as she actually turned up to our offices the day after attending my colleagues home, and expected a cheque from us.
I am sure the collector will hand it up to her boss and we will receive the demand as the registered office, however, you never know......
What type of Ltd Company....It is a regular business (Furniture) with business premises, employees etc.
So what happens now?The 'boys' come round after the matter has gone to court, so sayeth the collector. Court happens next week as we have seven days to pay. I assume we will get the summons and therefore an opportunity to put in a defence but the collector who came in yesterday was unclear as to the next course of action as she is 'passing the case up'.
I am going to assume that any action will only be taken out on the company and this is the last we will hear from the collectors. I am however going to send a strongly worded letter asking for the authority under which this claim for payment is being made, so thank you for your comments regarding this.
So far as the question concerning the circumstances surrounding the debt, I did ask if HMRC had any reason to believe there was wrong doing (fraud) or any other fault relating to the Secretary and the collector did not believe so and just reiterated that as Secretary, my colleague, was liable.
I have to be honest, my sympathy falls as much with HMRC as much as it does with my beleaguered colleague, as I am sure they could do without not only the complaint generated from us but also the adverse reputation that will follow.
Now is not the time for examples of ridiculous claims being made by HMRC which lack legislative support and smack of desperation.
An updateAndrew, thank you for that, I was under the same impression.
So far as what was written on the letter (re Penny Chambers comment), just after I posted my comment this morning, we had a visit from the tax collector concerned and she was confident that the amount could be sought from the company secretary.
I do not know whether she spoke out of turn, but she left us in no doubt as to what she wanted and who she wanted it from.
V-s-v needing a company secretary, we would rather not be appointed but sadly we have to wait for the banks to catch up with current legislation as many new bank account applications still insist on a company secretary. We will be phasing this out over time, but surely this demand, even if it is firmly filed in the 'don't be so stupid pile' still sets a worrying precedent for any tax agent operating as a coy sec.
Call me mercenary but who is going to pay for our defence against this rather daft request?
Is this a worrying trendIn answering Fellowcrafts question; yes they are trying to hold my colleague responsible as the letter that the HMRC collections agent left (adressed to my colleague) states:
'I called today to discuss payment of the amount above .....If you do not contact me I will start legal proceedings'
And thanks Doug, I will tell them to go away, however, maybe I should go round to this particular Tax Collectors house and tell her whilst stood on her doorstep!
IR35 client has has already processed final payrolland submitted P35 with boxes 6 & 6a ticked but not including deemed calculation!How should this be corrected? Can an amended P35 be sent?Also should deemed calculation have been included on P14's & P60 which have also been submitted? How can these be corrected.Thanks for all previous answers, much appreciated.
Thanks for that guys!Thanks for that. It is worth digging my heels in for. Also, I think part of the problem is his wife! Don't think he told her about this in the past and then she's found the tax demand for £23k and of course it's all the accountant's fault!They were both quite happy to spend all the 'untaxed' income for prior years without wondering why they paid so little tax. There is clear indication in his paperwork that he had been advised previously to submit tax returns but chose to ignore it too.Thanks again.