Member Since: 28th Apr 2010
28th Jun 2016
No you can't.
You would have to use the £3,757 calculated even if the director had only used £2.80 of fuel in the year.
28th Jun 2016
I have had a couple of these and a letter usually works.
I did have one where they tried the old 'its the taxpayers duty to inform us of address changes in SA'
I countered this by pointing out that they had put the taxpayer into SA and sent this to an old address and then and then asked them to quote any legislation which states that taxpayers under PAYE are required to do this.
HMRC admitted, by letter, that there is no such requirement, apologised and cancelled the penalties.
18th Apr 2016
Push the decision 'upstairs' to your employer
They're not assumptions, they're straight from the horse's mouth. The client's own actual words, as physically spoken from his own actual mouth.
The expenditure clearly isn't allowable on the facts. But as Ruddles pointed out, once he sees the legislation I'm sure he'll say he was only joking and that he uses the machine all the time and that the business couldn't exist without it. And my employers will say that on that basis AIA is claimable.
On that basis you should accept your employers instructions and then inform your company's MLRO that you believe the client was telling porkies.
You have then fulfilled all your duties appropriately and it becomes your employer's problem.
18th Apr 2016
Also check experience as well as qualifications
I'd also check their qualifications, "Accountant" isn't a protected term so you can get all sorts of people calling themselves accountants
As a non-qualified but with a fair amount of experience I would urge the OP to also check how long they have been in practice (as opposed to being in industry and dabbling in practice in their spare time) and how large their setup is.
I would agree that, on average, someone qualified with one of the major institutes behind them will produce work that is better than a non-qualified accountant - but I have seen that this 'average' can be very broad indeed.
The most important requirement for your accountant (as long as they have relevant knowledge which can be acquired by a mix of qualifications and experience) is that they are someone you feel you can trust and understand.
7th Apr 2016
I would ask how much they
I would ask how much tax they paid when they were a child and who paid for their education :)
If they had a good answer to that (just about possible) then I would ask if they owned the road they had driven to me on
6th Apr 2016
Quite a bit of experience with these types of clients
I would say a rule of thumb would be 0.5% to 1% of sales as the fee for an all-inclusive service.
You are towards the bottom end of this range and as such I would suggest that you protect yourself quite a bit. You could use the following methods:
Rigidly agree on the quality of the records you will be receiving and do not accept anything which is lower than the quality you stipulate - (to the extent of refuse to start the work until you get the records in the standard you expect or agree extra payment for your staff to get it up to the standard you expect);Do a trial period of at least three months for bookkeeping with everything charged by the hour and then make an estimate going forward - review this regularly to make sure the standard of records does not slip;Offer fixed fees for the accounts and purely an hourly rate for the bookkeeping;
As stated above clients usually think their records are much better than they actually are and this is your greatest level of risk. The most important piece of advice I can give you is that if the client is unwilling to commit to a rigid standard of quality and timescale of production for records and still wants a fixed fee then walk away
To give you an idea of what we do with these clients, we charge fixed fees for the accounts and tax returns, hourly rates for the bookkeeping and fixed fees for the data entry based on how we receive the data. For example if they prepare all their own invoices in xero we charge them nothing - if they give us a .csv we can just upload then we charge £3 per file - if they give us paper copies we scan them and create the corresponding invoices in xero and we charge £1 per invoice
I have found that clients can have some difficulty initially separating data entry from bookkeeping and explicitly doing this in the charging structure helps them to see the value-added of proper bookkeeping from pure data entry. The clients who view these as equivalent you just don't want.
30th Mar 2016
I was thinking along those lines, but was unsure if my other annoyances with the client were clouding my judgement.
Thanks again :)
21st Mar 2016
Class 1 NI
Portia Nina Levin wrote:Does £5,000 ring any bells?
Is Lship not referring to the employees Class 1 NI deducted on a salary of 11k?
11th Mar 2016
Commitments or treaties - what's the difference?
Yes, but with all these other bodies, we have merely entered into commitments, which is not the same as giving up sovereignty. With UN charters, NATO, etc, we know exactly what we've agreed to do.
We haven't given them a blank cheque to make law like we have with the EU. I don't see stacks of new legislation every year driven by the UN or the IMF. Just the EU. It's way in excess of what is necessary to operate a free trade area, or even to have free movement of people, goods and capital.
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there:
These agreement have to be implemented into our law, just as EU agreement do - it's just that the EU system is more formalised and less ad-hoc than these and with the qualified-majority voting system in place agreements can be made without unanimity.
Anyway it's not the EU that actually makes the laws - it's the member states.
The member states get together and horse-trade - for example Britian will demand that there is free competition for government contracts and Poland will only agree if there is also free movement of people.
The problem is mainly in how it is then reported back home:
In Britain the politian says "We have successfully forced Brussels to open government contracts for British industry - this is a victory for us!" and later says "Brussels has forced us to accept free movement of people from Poland, there's nothing we can do about it, damn Brussels!"
In Poland the politian says the same with the policies reversed.
It is in both politians interest to say this - they get the credit and a faceless 'Brussels' gets the blame.
I would say that 'entering into commitments' as you describe it also gives up some sovereignty - we have agreed to change our laws to suit an international body , or if it's a bilateral agreement another country.
Now you can say that we can walk away from those agreements and doing so exercises our sovereignty, and you would be correct - just as deciding to leave the EU would also exercise our sovereignty.
The point I am making is that to be totally sovereign we would have to cut all ties and agreements with other nations, something which is it abundantly clear is not in our interest to do.
You can liken it to agreeing to live under the rule of law - we agree to be policed by the state, when collectively we could easily overthrow it, as we see that the benefits of living in a state where rule of law applies (compared to anarchy, despotism or totalitarianism) to all vastly outweigh the costs in restrictions to our actions.
I see the EU as the best example of trying to apply the principle of rule of law to work between nations rather than the system we had before in Europe - which was anarchy between states, characterised by the balance of power with it's shifing alliances and the frequent wars when that power shifted.
11th Mar 2016
Sovereignty is a graded thing not binary!
Black Dog wrote:
The French threats are meaningless. If Britain leave the EU we will be free to stop all benefits to immigrants/asylum seekers. With no benefits, no housing, and the certainty of being arrested, put in a deportation camp, then shipped back to wherever they came from, there will be nothing to attract them here.
How will we be free from this just because we have left the EU - what about other agreements we have signed like this one http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49da0e466.html
Presumably you would then propose leaving the UN as it also infringes our sovreignty as well.
Face it, in an interconnected world, which has produced a world vastly richer and safer than the one that existed 50 to 100 years ago all nations (with the possible exception of places like North Korea) give up some sovreignty to supra-national bodies and are usually better off doing so.