Why at market value?
Why would the issue of more shares have to be at market value? Surely the company, if it is a single person company as I have assumed from the OP, just issues £xx more in share capital that the director subscribes for? Instead of paying cash, they are paid for with the credit on his loan account.
Why not just convert it into share capital?
Iris does not calculate class 2
Iris requires you to enter the class 2 NIC due, rather than calculating it in the software. Surely this is one of the simpler enhancements that they could have made in the latest release, so why was it omitted? Not impressed, and I will be firing off an email today!
Tried each, now do both
We switched to webinars three or four years ago when 2020 cut back on their theatre based seminars. I get a lot more hours CPD than I need, but I do find that I don't concentrate as well on the webinars when I view them on my own. It is much better when viewing them with colleagues, otherwise I find that there is the temptation to start looking at client papers on my desk.
With theatre lectures, you can't get distracted as easily and start up a conversation with others, so you almost forced to concentrate.
We now do a mix of (2020) PC and (PTP) theatre, using the latter mainly for quarterly tax updates, and I think this split works best.
Not too late
I started my ACCA training in 1993 at 32, and completed the exams in four years. I had to take all 14 papers since I had no exemptions, as my higher education was up to A-level, rather than university. I had a background in finance jobs so that helped me to understand a bit quicker than most of the (younger) students on the courses.
Start at the highest level at which you feel comfortable. If you know anything at all about accounts, I would not waste time on AAT if your ultimate aim is ACCA full qualification or similar.
The big problem you will have is getting a job in practice, if that is your aim. I was lucky enough to get a practice position (initially part-time) from the outset that gave me day release after 12 months.
Start studying on your own if necessary, and get what experience you can either in work or outside, perhaps by taking on voluntary treasurer roles for local organisations?
Surely, if the client comes clean and accepts the PYAs, then he is in the clear, but the old accountant would have to be reported no matter what?
Could always do better
My own clients (with practice total stats in brackets):
April 3% (2%)
May 6% (5%)
Jun 16% (9%)
Jul 13% (12%)
Aug 12% (12%)
Sep 11% (12%)
Oct 8% (9%)
Nov 7% (9%) - two weeks holiday, so some left until December
Dec 9% (10%)
Jan 15% (20%)
The work would have been done several weeks before in most cases. The figures are based on the dates that the initial returns were submitted, as there were a few that were amended later when clients produced additional information well after the submission date.
I still have one clown who collected his return and accounts on 6th January and, despite two emails reminding him of the deadline, he has not returned the form so I have not filed it. I suspect that he is using the figures to try to get a mortgage and will then come back to me say that the figures are wrong purely because he doesn't like the tax liability. He has enough black marks with me already (including his wife being very rude to my secretary) that it won't take much for me to dump him.
UTR should not change
The deceased taxpayer's reference should not change. After all, they were his tax affairs, and not the executor's. The executor will sign the return though and, as already pointed out, will also need to sign a 64-8 and engagement letters for each service. Remember to obtain ID, etc under the Money Laundering regulations for the executor, the same as you would do for any other new client.
If you have a new UTR, that may be for the estate, i.e. post-death income.
You can use the categories tab to set the partner and manager for the client, so you won't need to add it for every future job. We tend only to note the partner, as that is pretty constant, whereas the manager is almost always an employee rather than a partner and you cannot predict a year in advance who will still be working for you.
Proper terms at the outset
I find that the way to deal with this sort of client is:
1. Get them bring in the paperwork really early (i.e. before31 July) so that you can field their queries without December/January stress;
2. Get them to pay the tax due into your client account so that you can make sure it is paid;
3. Charge them a premium rate fee for the hand holding - at least 50% above your minimum;
4. Immediately dump them if they default on 1, 2 or 3 - allow them one breach before saying goodbye;
5. Put all of the above conditions (in bullet point form) in a supplementary letter to your usual engagement letter.
Failing that, if you really want to get rid of them, make sure you issue a disengagement letter, block their emails and refuse to take phone calls from them.
Personally, as long as they are not rude, and they pay the premium fee, I would keep them.
Not sure that Sennett's transgressions merit the term "crime", as they were breaches of ICAEW guidelines and not, as far as I am aware, nor is it stated as such in the text above, criminal activity.
Also, the grammar in the Four Oaks commentary is horrific. I would cringe if one of my staff let a client letter go out worded like that. Now that should be considered a c rime!
Thanks JAA - We seem to have used just about everyone apart from Draper Hinks, so I might give them a call.
- Foulger Underwood have at least kept in touch, and we did a deal through them nine years ago.
- Vivan Sram put us in touch with one that we thought was close to a deal but the vendor pulled out once, came back again four months later, and then went cold again.
- Retiring Accountant have passed a couple on, neither of which were suitable.
- 2020 were slow to respond, took quite a large upfront payment (£2250+VAT) and one of the two they have put my way we met one a couple of years prior to 2020's involvement, and they had already been told that when we took them on. Not impressed so far.
The 50% plus 3 years is fine, and I can see that it would maximise client retention rates, so fewer clawback issues, but so many questions remain, not least:
- What was the GRF multiplier?
- Is the vendor's consultancy position paid on a flat salary or fee, or on hours worked?
- Is the vendor's involvement on a gradually reducing basis over the three years?
- What if the buyer finds that the vendor will not let go of the clients when told to, and will not adopt the working practices of the buyer?
- Is there a clawback provision if clients still walk at the end of three years?
Per person or per trade
The initial debate also considered whether the 10k limit was per trade rather than per person, but Rebecca does not seem to have addressed this point.
Whilst I have told friends who will be caught by this (mainly small bands and music distributors with total sales, UK and EU, of less than £5k) that the reality is that they will not be pursued by HMRC for tiny amounts of VAT on their EU sales (in most cases under £100, so VAT even less), my professional advice cannot be to simply ignore it. ACCA and PII insurers would have a field day with that!
Legal aid for what?
Legal for what? He pleaded guilty.
Frankly, the argument as to whether or not the Royal Family is value for money (and my opinion is that it isn't) is irrelevant to the democratic issue. It is the 21st century, not the 15th, and having to treat some citizens (the Windsors) as better than others by virtue of their family lineage is abhorrent.
As regards the suggested "personal fortune" of the queen/family, just how do you think they got that in the first place? They stole/requisitioned/taxed it from others. It isn't hers/theirs, it is ours.
The UK does not need the Royal Family for tourism, as people come to see the architecture, not the people (who aren't on show at home anyway). The French managed to solve their monarchy problem quite well, yet visitors still flock to Versailles, etc.
Working my ar5e!
If that is what you call "working", then I would be happy to continue until my dying breath.
Should we apply the same rules to the Royal Family as to any other benefit claimants.
The state pension may be a Ponzi scheme, but I don't see anyone offering an alternative.