Qualiified as an ACA 1978 , became FCA shortly afterwards, gave up membership on 30th anniversary in 2008, enough!
sadly the supreme court in my opinion got this wrong , they clearly put ' the public interest' first by making a political decision. If you make a continual loss you may not be able to claim but if you make a guaranteed profit it must be illegal. its nonsense that careful planning should be treated in this way.
i do accept that some of the schemes were close to the bone but not all. And while we are on about it we need to push for more transparency in the judiciary who are resisting attempts to declare interests
'er whats secret about this?
who in their right mind would want to undertake audits?
So faster payments aren't working, course they are...
!! what about trying to help our clients through any difficulties, what has happened to the profession?
EXACTLY this is why crown preference is unfair
I don't disagee about 'misappropriation'. But in your example the trader has still to pay the input tax it would be withheld from the seller according to you, that model simply won't work.
So a trader buys something for 100+20 vat then sells for 110+22 vat but vat is withheld so is out of pocket by 120-110, that looks preposterous to me
your differentiation between tax money and other monies owed is totally false. why should suppliers who are owed for goods have to rank behind preferential creditors it just exacerbates matters for other businesses. if you don't understand 'more important things to worry about' then that may be part of the problem. as for your comment about withholding all VAT that is totally preposterous
Another appalling comment, takes me back to the start of RTI when HMRC wanted the gross wages and ers NI so that it could pay out net. There are insufficient reasons in a free society for the government to act in such a manner. There are far more important things to worry about Ann