Member Since: 12th Nov 2001
28th May 2015
Sage FPS line
Yes us as well. Have you also noticed that the last update and process date information has been a bit erratic - sometimes the dates have been showing, and on other days not? Noticed it around year end . Also the dates reports were last run also questionable. Some update and some, particularly the payslip report, doesn't always update to show it has been printed.
Good old Sage, volume of calls increases = your call is important to us so we will automatically cut you off! (well it might as well be!) Couldn't you just say we have a problem in this area which we are working on and you can keep up with progress by doing x?
1st Oct 2010
Not surprised your head hurts!
From what you now say, your business appears to consist of two separate and distinct "trades". The original one of being a Contractor, and the second of dabbling in shares/investments. Are you sure how HMRC view the investment activity? Is it a trade? If so, does the buying and selling of investments within the company constitute turnover? If under the FRS scheme would this attract VAT? If the turnover from this activity exceeded that from Contracting, is your flat rate scheme VAT rate now different from the rate you thought it should be? If categorised as turnover, are you still below the £150k threshhold for entry into the scheme, or above (or soon likely to exceed) the exit level?
There are an awful lot of variables here. I am also concerned that your FRS "benefit" is somewhere around the £3,000 level on turnover for the period you quoted of c£350k. That is a 1% benefit, and I just wonder whether this is a large enough margin to plump for a different scheme, when you are not sure what you will be doing as your contract is subject to change every 3 to 6 months. Forget hindsight, at what point over this period would you have jumped? - and that is before considering the trading in investments angle!
This all shows the value in having regular (and meaningful) contact with your adviser.
3rd Mar 2010
Black holes part 2
I echo comments from Chris Wise. I too have had problems with receiving confirmation of repayment instruction, only for it to fail and reappear on the client record. On querying this, I was told "computer glitch" and try again.
Assumption therefore that glitch expunges all record of attempt to make repayment, including confirmation issued to taxpayer/agent, so there is no trace of original request. Doesn't sound like a very robust system to me.
Only alternative conclusion is no-one at HMRC is concerned or thinks part of their service mandate should include contacting those they have already received confirmation that a repayment is on their way, that there has been a system failure and they are affected and may need to re-apply.
1st Mar 2010
Do it yourself...
If you have on line access, why not check the clients tax position through HMRC goverment gateway? If the refund is shown as due, but it is sitting on the clients account, you could initiate the refund yourself. (Need client bank details) I have had mixed results with this myself, as Revenue glitches have resulted in a confirmation of repayment being issued but the repayment not being made, but at least when we looked again a week or so later it was credited back onto the client account and we were able to request a refund again, which then worked.
8th May 2009
we have a rule in our practice that in year 1 of a new business we operate salary only, and only start any dividend planning from the point that we have established that there are actually distributable profits available.
In the current climate, businesses should be very careful of relying on dividend policy if profits are not there to be distributed, as any illegal dividend is potentially recoverable by the company.
7th May 2009
Depends on nature of transaction
if you need a ruling, should you be contacting a specialist office in the first place? Whichever department the query should go to, try and make contact with a named individual if only to confirm that they are the right department to obtain the clearance from.
In most cases there is a 30 day response time so you are not necessarily going to get a quick answer...
7th May 2009
why close company?
Is the DLA substantial? If it is, it may be worth while holding on to the company if there is a prospect of putting a future trade through it. You could then extract post tax profits generated by repaying the DLA with no personal tax cost to the director. It will be a new trade so no prospect of using existing CT losses, but profit extraction at nil cost could be attractive.
If the company is "clean" you might even be able to sell it on to someone else!
Turning to the original question, I would not spend the time revising the accounts, just submit as they stand.
7th May 2009
Martin I agree...
Insolvency practitioner has suggested a route by which director may be able to wriggle out of his responsibilities, and he may well get away with it, as Martin comments in his post, but that does not make it right, nor should the director be under any illusion that what has been suggested is anything other than a "workaround" rather than facing his responsibilities. Its not like he hasn't had the use of the funds after all. If anyone does come a calling, I would suggest he settles with them, but he is just as likely to get away by ignoring it in the hope that no-one will take him to court to recover debt from him personally.
7th May 2009
From what you describe, the director has simply taken the cash and run off leaving his creditors behind him. I am not an insolvency pratitioner but in my view the company creditors would be entitled to come after him for payment as the illegal dividends (if such they were) should be repaid.
It sounds like the letter sent out to creditors was to suggest that there is no prospect of recovery, whereas I would have thought there would be a remedy against the director personally as any proper receiver would in the circumstances you describe, seek repayment of the overdrawn loan account. If the creditors were only for small amounts he may get away with it, but I would be surprised if HMRC were not interested in recovering all PAYE/VAT/CT etc liabilities, and the cost of quantifying them would fall on the director as it is his responsibility to clear up. This also has money laundering implications as he appears to be illegally trying to avoid his responsibilities both to creditors generally and the Revenue as well.
7th May 2009
I would ring CCH support and check. 2008 worked fine the way you are describing, but I have not got round to 2009 Returns yet!
I seem to recall at a user group meeting that HMRC are encouraging repayment direct to bank accounts, as cheaper and less time consuming than aiuthorising and issuing checkes, so your curmudgeonly old b"$*^*r may have had his last moment of pleasure!