Worked for Inland Revenue for 11 years in the 70s and 80s before I saw the light!
Progressed from working for medium sized firms of accountants to starting my own practice in 1996 and havent looked back since, with hubby joining me in partnership 7 years later.
Some years ago, when I was working for an accountancy practice, I was asked if I would work extra hours in the summer, when we were busiest, in exchange for time off in the quieter months (no extra pay!). Needless to say I said no thanks.
One of my clients was involved in a now closed film partnership and was told several years ago, I think by both the partnership and HMRC, that an enquiry had been opened. Since then we have had regular "updates" from HMRC saying something along the lines of "sorry - the enquiry is still being dealt with" but nothing more.
We were never involved in the enquiry and have little knowledge of what it entailed, so it will be extremely difficult after so many years to challenge any findings or penalties that may be levied!
Haven't read through all of the replies but it depends on how the scheme is set up. I have dealt with two pension providers, NEST and NOW Pensions and one took the net contribution from the pay after calculating the tax and the other took it off first, so that in theory any higher rate relief was given through the payroll.
I have had this several times over the years. I always ask for the P800 to be cancelled and for the tax paid to be transferred to the SA account, otherwise it will not be matched up to the tax due.
The software is correct. This is why people have it coded out as opposed to paying in full.
We had a client with lettings who really didn't want to make payments on account but wanted to pay the tax due at the end of each year. We ended up completing the tax return and requesting the underpayment to be coded. Then she would pay it and we had to phone to having the coding adjustment removed. The payments on account were never restored!
Well I am 71 now and still working but chose to pass on all my self-employed clients and some of the landlords when it looked as if MTD was going to happen sooner rather than later, as I wanted to give a colleague time to get to know them first.
I hadn't decided what to do with the rest of the landlords, as there were only a few who would be affected, so still have them.
My practice is down to around 20% of the former size but that's great as I have more time to spare. Most of those left are pensioners, who want me to continue as long as possible. Provided costs can be covered I'm now offering a service, rather than out to make a profit.
HMRC cannot repay foreign tax as they haven't received it!
All they can do, if DT treaty allows, is reduce the UK tax due by the same amount paid.
As also mentioned, you can opt to declare the net amount instead.
Well, I have done it without any trouble at all - each POA for 2022/23 reduced by 50p.
..and I have also done this many times in the past without any difficulty. However, I agree with the suggestion that you reduce the POAs to have of what has actually been paid already if you are having problems. That should definitely work.
I wish you hadn't asked me who does the payroll. This client asked me to show them how to do it themself so I charged them for an hour of my time to show them and now they are dealing with it. I know. I'm stupid. I won't do that again. Like I say, I never had a client like that before. They completely caught me out.
If the client is small and needs to keep the fees down, I am more than happy to show them how to deal with the payroll themselves, especially when it is a weekly payroll. When RTI came in, I helped a shop and a hairdresser to take over the payrolls (both weekly but previously run 4-weekly with adjustments on the 4th week), so that we didn't have the hassle.
I remember, years ago when I think I was still working for Inland Revenue (which tells you how long ago!), a case of a lady teaching English to overseas students. I can't remember the exact facts but lets say she went to India for a weekend conference but took her husband along and stayed for a week or more.
IR decided that the primary purpose of the trip was a holiday, not for work, and only allowed the incidental costs of the conference, not the travel or extra costs outside of this. The emphasis was very much on what was the primary purpose when deciding what to allow and some costs, such as travel, just cannot be apportioned.
My answers
Some years ago, when I was working for an accountancy practice, I was asked if I would work extra hours in the summer, when we were busiest, in exchange for time off in the quieter months (no extra pay!). Needless to say I said no thanks.
One of my clients was involved in a now closed film partnership and was told several years ago, I think by both the partnership and HMRC, that an enquiry had been opened. Since then we have had regular "updates" from HMRC saying something along the lines of "sorry - the enquiry is still being dealt with" but nothing more.
We were never involved in the enquiry and have little knowledge of what it entailed, so it will be extremely difficult after so many years to challenge any findings or penalties that may be levied!
Haven't read through all of the replies but it depends on how the scheme is set up. I have dealt with two pension providers, NEST and NOW Pensions and one took the net contribution from the pay after calculating the tax and the other took it off first, so that in theory any higher rate relief was given through the payroll.
I have had this several times over the years. I always ask for the P800 to be cancelled and for the tax paid to be transferred to the SA account, otherwise it will not be matched up to the tax due.
We had a client with lettings who really didn't want to make payments on account but wanted to pay the tax due at the end of each year. We ended up completing the tax return and requesting the underpayment to be coded. Then she would pay it and we had to phone to having the coding adjustment removed. The payments on account were never restored!
Well I am 71 now and still working but chose to pass on all my self-employed clients and some of the landlords when it looked as if MTD was going to happen sooner rather than later, as I wanted to give a colleague time to get to know them first.
I hadn't decided what to do with the rest of the landlords, as there were only a few who would be affected, so still have them.
My practice is down to around 20% of the former size but that's great as I have more time to spare. Most of those left are pensioners, who want me to continue as long as possible. Provided costs can be covered I'm now offering a service, rather than out to make a profit.
HMRC cannot repay foreign tax as they haven't received it!
All they can do, if DT treaty allows, is reduce the UK tax due by the same amount paid.
As also mentioned, you can opt to declare the net amount instead.
..and I have also done this many times in the past without any difficulty. However, I agree with the suggestion that you reduce the POAs to have of what has actually been paid already if you are having problems. That should definitely work.
If the client is small and needs to keep the fees down, I am more than happy to show them how to deal with the payroll themselves, especially when it is a weekly payroll. When RTI came in, I helped a shop and a hairdresser to take over the payrolls (both weekly but previously run 4-weekly with adjustments on the 4th week), so that we didn't have the hassle.
I remember, years ago when I think I was still working for Inland Revenue (which tells you how long ago!), a case of a lady teaching English to overseas students. I can't remember the exact facts but lets say she went to India for a weekend conference but took her husband along and stayed for a week or more.
IR decided that the primary purpose of the trip was a holiday, not for work, and only allowed the incidental costs of the conference, not the travel or extra costs outside of this. The emphasis was very much on what was the primary purpose when deciding what to allow and some costs, such as travel, just cannot be apportioned.