Member Since: 25th Mar 2013
17th Jun 2021
Did you establish an existing relationship with your local MP before copying him into emails or do you just copy them in blind as a way to keep HMRC honest?
15th Jun 2021
It can be as simple as you describe, but if there are significant tax of financial implications here you may want to at least take a look at something like the Enterprise Management Incentive Scheme, which can allow you to pass shareholding to key employees without incurring as large a tax bill as a simple transfer would:
There's admin involved, I'm not sure first-hand how much, which may lead to you deciding it's not worth the effort but it couldn't hurt to at least look at this.
11th Jun 2021
You're not responsible for someone else filing incorrect paperwork with Companies House, nor are you responsible for correcting someone else's mistake. If any post turns up just put "Not at this address" on the envelope and put it back in the post. Not your responsibility to do any more than that.
In truth though, you're probably upset over nothing. Nobody really cares about incorrect information at Companies House. If Companies House actually cared about enforcing the company register it might be something to worry about; but they don't. Even blatant frauds and errors are of zero interest to them. They're a box ticking committee and do not actually enforce these rules.
16th Mar 2021
Yup. Takes all of five minutes to generate SA302s and email them through, I would just provide them free of charge unless I had some reason for wanting to be spiteful towards an ex client.
22nd Jan 2021
Re: the risk you suggest. Every time I have applied this treatment in the past payments are made directly from the company to the lender rather than Company>Director>Lender. Simplifies the process and deals with objections like that. I think it's on the outside of possibility though since the Director has no real incentive to try and default on a loan which they are personally responsible for and which they are having the company pay. If that situation or a liquidation ever did come up it would require amendment to the accounts to adjust for the new reality.
One reservation I have about doing it properly as you say is that having the director charge interest to the company creates additional paperwork in the CT61s and pushes taxable income into the director's name. I'm unclear on whether a director would be entitled to deduct interest they're paying to a lender from the interest they receive from the company. It would seem to create a situation where a director ends up paying income tax on loan interest which they are incurring wholly and exclusively for the company's benefit.
21st Jan 2021
I don't agree that it's not a true reflection. If the director took out a loan on the company's behalf in his own name and then introduced the full sum of this into the company the substance of the transaction appears to me to be that the company is the true beneficiary of the loan. The company has received the full benefit of the loan and the purpose of the loan was to raise cash for the company's use, not the director's.
Like you say below, HMRC are more than happy to make use of the substance over form principle when it suits them, my view has always been that the argument runs both ways and I have successfully defended similar treatment in the past.
21st Jan 2021
In similar situations I usually take the view that the accounts are supposed to reflect the true trading rather than the technical legal position of the company. I would treat the loan as if it were a loan in the company's name (assuming the entire sum of the loan was used by the company). I would then claim interest in the company accounts. I have defended this view to HMRC in the past with no issues.
If the director took this loan out solely for the company's benefit, it's essentially a company loan (albeit one the director is personally liable for).
19th Jan 2021
Absolutely agree with you. The client here isn't entirely blameless but there's absolutely no excuse for taking a month to reply to an email and suddenly changing the established payment conditions within a few weeks of a penalty deadline. It's blatantly unprofessional behaviour.
If the accountant wanted to charge a higher fee she should have established this well in advance, not suddenly thrust it on her clients when it would be too late for many to find a different accountant.
18th Jan 2021
I'm sympathetic to your need to earn a living, but honestly I really wouldn't encourage you to try setting up a practice without two real years of practice experience. There are a huge number of regulations and pitfalls which industry will not have prepared you for at all. I became registered for my practice pretty quickly after two years real and quite intensive experience and frankly I don't think I could have been trusted to do this type of work sooner than that.
If you can get your FiL to support you all power, but to my mind that only works if he's actually involved in helping you run it compliant with regulations and is really properly reviewing all your work. If you start out into practice completely fresh and don't have someone competent and knowledgeable checking your working papers you are guaranteed to make serious errors or develop very bad ongoing habits.
21st Dec 2020
Structure doesn't work I'm afraid. On the surface I think it would be entirely reasonable to split a horse selling business and a professional sports business (Although I would want more fine detail before making the call - what do they define as professional sports?). The problem is they would need to be separate legal entities to be assessed for VAT separately. If there's no split of the entities then your client gets assessed on their total sole trader income and needs to register for VAT.