Member Since: 31st Mar 2016
8th Apr 2021
So much for the Government, and their "gig" economy. They still can't get beyond everyone must be an employee of someone! Clearly they need to focus on some innovative solutions to waiting until after the year-end to collect taxes. Maybe MTD/RTI might aid that thinking. I can't disagree that many people seem to expend a large amount of effort (or pay someone else) to find ways around paying their fair share, but surely in this day and age................
8th Apr 2021
Kemu, I have no basis to challenge the voracity of your research, but doesn't it just feel perverse when the size of the ultimate hiring company (let's say "employer" for a moment) determines whether they or the contractor's company must make the determination. If deemed a "small" employer, then the onus shifts to the contractor to make it. Yet, almost invariably, the contractor could be expected to be smaller, and is less likely to have access to the resources to make that determination without resorting having to pay someone else to do it for them! Strange, and on this evidence, feels like another piece of legislation aimed squarely at enriching the army of professional advisers (that must now surely be approaching the size of China's military might)! Agree the Indemnity clause seems pointless, but feel equally certain many "employers" will insist on it, to try to scare the contractors, based on contracting "power", and then let it be struck down either by HMRC or the courts. Similarly, I would hope the contractors will find sufficient resources to purchase insurance, but maybe that is naive?
13th May 2019
At a previous company, we developed a spreadsheet model to support any decision to pay a dividend, and we dealt with interim distributions by restricting the profit available for distribution to include only the lower of YTD Profit or forecast final profit, after tax, for the year in question. Requires you to be forecasting full year profits on an ongoing basis, but not a bad business discipline, anyway! Remember to always have the Board minute to support the decision, as well.
28th Jan 2019
Just of out interest, I have been to a local accountant, and all I get is "boiler-plate" back. If I want more, I have to pay more! I haven't even set up the company that I am being forced to, in order to contract with an organisation. I note with interest, that the "8 questions" didn't come forth, presumably as that might allow someone without this knowledge to understand a bit more. So, I have to go and pay good money I don't yet have for professional advice, and yet I see another blog request this morning about what further deductions an accountant might look to make for his client, and the advice is positively flowing. I wonder, when is advice not advice?!
20th Dec 2018
You assume complicated = big, and that is not the case here. Also, this is a very unusual transaction for a (relatively) small private group of companies to undertake. I met out auditors today to go through their proposed treatment, and before that, I just wanted to sound out my peers (who I reasonably assumed might have more experience of such accounting for group restructurings that i certainly have) to be able to get a sense for how I feel the conversation ought to go. I have always found Accounting Web's forums to be highly informative, and helping those accountants among us, who are in business (not practitioners) to gain a deeper understanding of any relevant topics discussed in here. I greatly value what I have read, as "another perspective", and thank everyone for their thoughts. In no way, would I ever look to this forum as a cheap alternative to paid advice, rather as a Peer Group network, where people freely share their knowledge and thoughts with others, who ask, out of recognition that none of us know it all! Please contrast this with some posts I have seen where people wish to use it as a free advertising vehicle for their products or services. Again, many thanks.
19th Dec 2018
Input is appreciated. Understand auditors will not be ignoring GAAP, and that we prepare the accounts for the companies and not the shareholders. However, if we are being asked to report a loss on disposal as the NAV being removed from the consolidation is greater than the consideration received, then surely in the "acquiring" entity, the NAV being received is greater than the consideration paid, and we should record ...........?
19th Dec 2018
Yes, that is indeed an excellent question, and if I had the answer, I would feel much happier than I do, as I type this! My concern is that (ignoring GAAP for one moment), this is a wholly "internal" transaction. We set up two new holding co's and transferred one of our trading subsidiaries from one holding co to the other. Nothing at all different, and yet now we are receiving "asymmetric" feedback as to how this should be handled, at the consolidated level, that does not seem to align with the commercial substance of the transaction, which is that nothing of value has left the shareholders (merely passing from the left hand to the right hand), and yet the auditors seem not to be able to recognise the strangeness of what they are suggesting. I have a meeting with them soon, and was just trying to get a feel for what others might think. We shall see what that yields up!
19th Dec 2018
We did, on tax and legal, and our auditors were aware of the transaction, but now, as we try to close the audit for the year, they have come up with this late "surprise". The perverse thing is that everything is owned today, as it was "yesterday", just having moved from an old group into a newly-established one, so it is perplexing to understand how a need to book a loss has arisen (especially with no discuss of a gain in the other group). The "loss" is, of course being driven by their assertion that the NAVs disposed of exceed the consideration paid. Thank you anyway.
22nd Aug 2018
Sadly, just a one-page order sheet, with no T&Cs and a "ship to" address that is an "end-client" employee, at their German address, and the order just says invoice separately from the product shipment, and the page is littered with references to the end client, and the quote I put in my original positing. Feels to me as if it should be subject to RC VAT but they are insistent that they have tax/client advice/instructions that it should not attract VAT of any sort.
28th Mar 2018
Without having checked FRS102, I suspect it might need to be based on a "valuation" of the building rather than merely what the directors "feel". I would expect this would normally be based on some externally verifiable valuation, such as from a commercial property agent, RICS member, or similar. After all, we all "feel" our properties are worth more now that they used to be!! Also, whilst an underlying presumption that the land on which the property sits may appreciate in value (but even that may not be so certain in recent times!), I think it might be that there could be an underlying presumption of the opposite as far as the building goes. Should there be an evidenced increase in value, some consideration of what can and cannot be done with any revaluation reserve created from recognising any increased value in the books, will also need to be made.