I purchased a small practice last year and integrated it into my own existing firm - I am ACCA regulated, vendor unregulated.
GDPR was not considered an issue. We bought the client list and files, and they were transferred to us. We contacted all clients with new engagement letters and requested new ID&V.
As is normal, onboarding rate was around 80%, but of those who didn't we only had a couple who requested their files and we gladly passed them over. One client dropped a Subject Data Access Request on us middle of January, as he thought that would be the best way to get handover to his new accountant in time for 31/1. He withdrew it when we explained we were nice people, and "please" would have worked just as well!
Musing, I suppose its more the vendors issue as the person releasing data, although the purchaser could be processing it without a consent. But as paul.benny says there are other grounds for processing other than consent, and I would think it arguable this is "legitimate interest". Arguably it would also be as big a sin to stop acting for client and not give continuity of some sort.
Our transaction worked out OK, and I would do the same again. If a vendor wanted to obtain client consent to transfer files then I wouldn't worry as it comes off clawback. If I was selling, I think I would endeavour to work around the requirement, maybe notifying clients and giving a limited opt opt.
Bought by Iris, what do you expect? Several products I've used have been bought by Iris, and they have always been bogged up in some way.
I like taxfiler, but the writing must be on the wall.
No, I don't have a statutory reference.
But it is a process issue. Peoples debate / questions on called v issued v called & unpaid is all irrelevant.
For a company limited by shares then at least one person subscribes for at least one share on incorporation.
Hence issued shares will always be at least one share, in practical terms.
Whether that one issued share has been paid or not is a different matter, and determines where the double entry is.
Equally whether further shares have been issued is another matter, as is whether they are called and paid or called and unpaid.
The only way the share capital could be zero, IMV, is if there had been a buyback or cancellation. At that stage with no shareholders the company has to cease to exist, presumably becoming bona vacanta.
But in the context of a typical small company, this is grossly overthinking and over complicating.
girlofwight wrote: Assuming they are subscriber shares they must inter alia be called
Is this a statement or a question girlofwight? If it is a statement, can you give us the statutory reference?
Karen, only just seen this.
If you are sorted now, fine, but if not get in touch - I am a RYT200 as well as accountant, and offer free help and support for yoga teachers on accounting worries, and a discounted fee for tax returns etc
Despite giving them notice and our contract running out Saturday, they rang up yesterday wanting to upgrade us. Sigh.
If it's been going on for a couple of years, you may ask HMRC why they didn't peruse the debt with client sooner; if they have let two years arrears run up, then I may suggest they are also culpable.
Also, think of course, about AML reporting.
For those of us old enough to remember Freeway
For those of us old enough to remember Iris's purchase of Freeway PayPal, and the "support" afterwards in the first year of incentive driven EOY payroll filing it's the same again. Hour long call waits were not unusual.
I personally lost faith in Iris then.
We've used Drummohr for a little over 15 years, with concern when Iris took them over, but took the decision not to follow them into the cloud. Fortunately out license ends 30 April so it's more or less tax year aligned.
I'm glad, from reading above, I'm not the only one flummoxed by three weeks notice. I thought I had missed a communication from them months erlier - obviously not.
So, not sure about current Drummohr support, but my general feeling about Iris over a number of years is not warm.
We still use Compac accounts production, which is Keytime owned. I suspect time is running out in this, but we've just signed a three year contract which goes against my instinct but (a) it's very keenly priced - sub £400 a year - and there is a low cancellation fee of 20% of the two future years renewals if we did cancel. And, of course, if they make significant changes to the program then there will be constructive termination on their part anyway. Buys us time to look elsewhere for AP.
The devil will be in the detail, but on facts given I would err towards looking through both intermediaries and look at the nature of the relationship with the end customer; that should address IR35.
The second issue is Agency rules, and again on facts given they shouldn't affect things.
And poaching staff...
As well as spamming inboxes, I was more that miffed when they were advertising job vacancies to my staff /trainees using my firms email system. The CX couldn't see what was amiss with that when I complained.
I'm an ACCA member of 28 years; I would struggle to say I've had much in the way of value or benefit from ACCA in that time, other than the kudos of the letters; engagement with them has normally been tense and stressful, and an attitude of indifference meets obstruction. There have been two notable exceptions to that when they were very helpful.
Yes, you would time apportion the gain.
However I would question the exclusive use suggestion. Your client may have been describing it as that, but do the facts support it.
My understanding is a small amount of PU of the area would eliminate CGT and probably not effect the claim for expenses.