It says that an employee cannot be furloughed for the first time after 1 July, but if an employee has been furloughed in May but brought back for six weeks can that employee be included in a furlough claim from 7 July?
Like Chris Cope I have an interest in this case as I am the co-director and I sat through two days of evidence at the Disciplinary Committee. I will not comment on any of the specific charges but in a public hearing Dix admitted when specifically questioned that he had retained the money and not accounted for income tax or VAT to H M Revenue & Customs. Can someone please explain to me how that cannot be regarded as dishonest conduct?
You are very generous describing item 4 as "incompetence", is there not a strong case for saying it was deliberate attempt to keep from public record the fact that he had signed audit reports when he wasn't a rgistered auditor.
Chris Cope's comment that "exclusion was, I think, inevitable" at the decision in Ellerby. He has recently acted for a member before an ICAEW tribunal in a case where the tribunal found against the member for unprofessional practice, improperly retaining client funds (theft and fraud of HMRC in everyday language), signing audit reports when not a registered auditor. The member was fined but not expelled. ICAEW still consider him suitable to be a member !!
Absolutely nothing, HMRC do what they want without any proper consultation from users (I believe). The page is an extremely useful pointer. I have a call with a pr firm tomorrow who want to found out how well HMRC are doing, bet this doesn't get raised. If it is the normal straight jacket survey I don't think I'll bother.
I got a speedy reply when I telephoned CAAT yesterday, but it went downhill from there. I was trying to get an explanation as to why my attempt to use the electronic authorisation facility had failed. The guy who answered the phone kept insisting that this was because there wasn't a 64-8 in place.
I then tried SA technical support who told me that we are in fact already registered as agents (which is what we thought all along and is probably why the electronic authorisation failed) but the system wasn't "correctly flagged".
Another 15 minutes of my life wasted, I don't think that I can justify charging the client.
When trying to resolve my original issue about filing returns without a UTR for a partnership I was advised that as long as the partners paid the tax due by 31 January late filing penalties onthe returns (including the partnership return) would be reduced to £nil. I understood that the £100 per partner was not mitigate.
Our problem is that we have a UK trading partnership with no UTR. Both partners were already in the self assessment system and advised HMRC of self employed status by telephone and have paid Class 2 NICs. No CWF1 was submitted and neither partner was instructed that one should have been submitted.
A CWF1 has now been submitted, but no UTR has been issued.
Assuming that the UTR is still not available by 31 January can the partners enter profit details in notes or other income so that they can file their individual returns on time.
Another polished PR performance from DH Whatever else we might think of DH he does these bits well.
What do the CIOT in particular and other professional bodies think of the Revenue's view that a professional qualification means nothing?
When asked about the delays in repayments DH again blamed unscrupulous agents for submitting fraudulent claims, no consideration of lack of HMRC staff, poor training etc.
My answers
It says that an employee cannot be furloughed for the first time after 1 July, but if an employee has been furloughed in May but brought back for six weeks can that employee be included in a furlough claim from 7 July?
As has been previously stated the size of the fines seems totally disproportionate.
Like Chris Cope I have an interest in this case as I am the co-director and I sat through two days of evidence at the Disciplinary Committee. I will not comment on any of the specific charges but in a public hearing Dix admitted when specifically questioned that he had retained the money and not accounted for income tax or VAT to H M Revenue & Customs. Can someone please explain to me how that cannot be regarded as dishonest conduct?
You are very generous describing item 4 as "incompetence", is there not a strong case for saying it was deliberate attempt to keep from public record the fact that he had signed audit reports when he wasn't a rgistered auditor.
When it comes to plucking figures (£40k) out of the air you should be accpeted with open arms.
Chris Cope's comment that "exclusion was, I think, inevitable" at the decision in Ellerby. He has recently acted for a member before an ICAEW tribunal in a case where the tribunal found against the member for unprofessional practice, improperly retaining client funds (theft and fraud of HMRC in everyday language), signing audit reports when not a registered auditor. The member was fined but not expelled. ICAEW still consider him suitable to be a member !!
What's New
Absolutely nothing, HMRC do what they want without any proper consultation from users (I believe). The page is an extremely useful pointer. I have a call with a pr firm tomorrow who want to found out how well HMRC are doing, bet this doesn't get raised. If it is the normal straight jacket survey I don't think I'll bother.
CAAT telephone line
I got a speedy reply when I telephoned CAAT yesterday, but it went downhill from there. I was trying to get an explanation as to why my attempt to use the electronic authorisation facility had failed. The guy who answered the phone kept insisting that this was because there wasn't a 64-8 in place.
I then tried SA technical support who told me that we are in fact already registered as agents (which is what we thought all along and is probably why the electronic authorisation failed) but the system wasn't "correctly flagged".
Another 15 minutes of my life wasted, I don't think that I can justify charging the client.
When trying to resolve my original issue about filing returns without a UTR for a partnership I was advised that as long as the partners paid the tax due by 31 January late filing penalties onthe returns (including the partnership return) would be reduced to £nil. I understood that the £100 per partner was not mitigate.
No partnership UTR
Our problem is that we have a UK trading partnership with no UTR. Both partners were already in the self assessment system and advised HMRC of self employed status by telephone and have paid Class 2 NICs. No CWF1 was submitted and neither partner was instructed that one should have been submitted.
A CWF1 has now been submitted, but no UTR has been issued.
Assuming that the UTR is still not available by 31 January can the partners enter profit details in notes or other income so that they can file their individual returns on time.
Another polished PR performance from DH
Whatever else we might think of DH he does these bits well.
What do the CIOT in particular and other professional bodies think of the Revenue's view that a professional qualification means nothing?
When asked about the delays in repayments DH again blamed unscrupulous agents for submitting fraudulent claims, no consideration of lack of HMRC staff, poor training etc.