Member Since: 7th Mar 2014
8th Sep 2014
Soon they wont need to bother sending out these aggressive letters.
They will simply take the money out of your bank account. Then when you contact them to say it was paid via your spouse's tax return, got your spouse to confirm they can talk to you, got them to check the records again, and waited the standard 4-12 weeks time for them to process something, you money will be returned.
The system works!
8th Aug 2014
I am actually quite the sage fan. I have always recommended it over its rivals (QB etc), but with these price increases it seems that they have gone a bit mad.
I certainly wont be recommending it anymore to the majority of my clients. Not when the likes of Xero (not my favorite package by a long shot) & co are so much cheaper.
7th Jul 2014
"and achieved our best-ever customer service levels"
Really! This is your best ever!
7th Jul 2014
Is it just me?
Is it just me or does £1m per year in jail not seem too bad. I mean if you consider he may well only do half of that (good behaviour) and quite possibly a chunk of it in an open prison. I'm no prison expert so i don't know if his previous conviction effects the good behaviour rule, but it seems a bit light to me.
30th May 2014
Thanks David, though i am a little depressed :(
So what your saying then, is that this guy can now declare himself bankrupt, have his wife set up a PR company, employ him for national minimum wage, she take the profit and they continue as before.
So long as he keeps his nose clean for 2 years (i doubt this would be too hard for him, he's hardly a career shoplifter) he wont go to jail and he wont have to pay anything back to HMRC (an assumption that NMW would be too low for an AOE to kick in).
Horray for the British justice system!
30th May 2014
I would be interested in an answer to the following question. Does anyone know what the terms of his suspended sentence are?
For instance, is it a standard thing of if you get convicted of another offence then you will go to jail, or are they specific to the case, i.e. if he fails to make a payment to HMRC he will be in breach and therefore go to jail?
Because if its the first i really do despair!
19th May 2014
Ok well first off, regardless of one's spiritual/religious beliefs, the UK legal system at its very core, is derived from biblical principles. So, taxes act = UK Law = Bible principles = Science fiction = Taxes Act ;)
I would just point out that i do agree with most people on here that these obviously contrived tax avoidance measures are not right. My earlier pensions analogy was an attempt to use hyperbole to make a point. Because, where do we draw the line? How as advisors should we draw a line. That surely comes down to our own professional judgement. But that can be as individual as you or I.
You say pension funds are fine. Great, what about offshore pension funds registered with QROPS? Are they fine too? because they can be used to avoid all sorts of taxes.
EBT's (never used them BTW) were set up for soldiers in world war one (I believe, though i am sure i will be corrected if wrong ;), they were never intended to be used as they have been. But it is not the advisors/clients fault that the trust law they were written in had a "loop hole".
Which brings us back to the core point of morals, which is judgmental. We all know stealing is wrong. Many would argue that a starving man stealing a slice of bread is as guilty as a man who robs a bank. But some wouldnt. So my point is, we cannot act as judge for all scenarios(that's just plain arrogant). We have to take a pragmatic view, is it legal Yes/No. Is it in my clients best interests Yes/No. does my client fully understand what they are getting in to Yes/No.
If the answer to any of those questions is No, then we should not be offering/advising it to anyone.
I know not everyone will agree with me on all the points, and a forum is not the best place to get a point across (personally i much prefer sitting round a pub table with a pint), but i do think i make one or two valid points.
Plus i used winky faces, so you gotta like it! :)
16th May 2014
Sorry to wade in...
First off - Peak Performance charged a legal fee on top of their costs to any client who signed up to any number of their schemes. This fee was to pay for any legal/tax disputes over the schemes. So quite why they feel it is our responsibility to tackle these issues is lost on me!
Secondly - The last time i checked, i was not a cricket. It is not my job to be my clients conscience. It is my job to understand the tax law and explain the options to my clients, including the pro's and con's.
Thirdly - The last time I checked, it was my job to ensure my client paid the correct amount of tax (in my judgement that is the lowest amount of tax that they are legally obliged to pay)
Fourthly - Anyone who pays in to a pension fund is avoiding tax. SO, if any of you further up the list are complaining about these naughty tax dodgers, but are in fact paying in to a pension fund, i have one word for you. Hypocrites. And before everyone starts telling me its different i ask you to remember that the vast majority of these schemes are not illegal.
12th May 2014
Yet another reason why i am glad i knocked my membership to ACCA on the head!
9th May 2014
The frustration is that he will probably only do 2 years, 18 months of which will be in an open prison, from which he may even be given day release in order to ...... you guessd it.... work!