"Wow, the award for overthinker of the year goes to..."
Definitely the most favoured response - a sincere thank you.
My visits to this forum are usually for three things: to gain knowledge from betters, of which there are more than there are not; to understand different perspectives; to be entertained.
This small pebble in the pond has brought all three.
The contributors that have provided the links to current legislation are appreciated. The number of responses that have only looked at the here and now explain why the industry is always caught with its trousers down. It never ceases to surprise me how righteous some commentators are, but that is the balancing agent that enlightens the personal perspective. The occasional snippets of humour and wordplay always make the visits worthwhile in an otherwise soulless day.
I can only wonder how Darwin felt about the ridicule that reigned on him when he first suggested his theory of evolution, or how Orwell could possibly conceive the storylines to any of his literary insights into governmental and social influences. My twilight years are less comforting than I envisaged.
"4. How will filing requirements for small companies and micro-entities change?
The government will streamline the existing filing framework for small and micro entity companies.
Rather than having the filing obligations for small companies and micro-entities within the same section of the Companies Act 2006, the Bill splits the requirements into two sections, which aims to make the filing requirements clearer for companies to understand.
Under the new rules, micro-entities will be required to prepare annual accounts in accordance with the requirements of section 396 (which requires the preparation of a profit and loss account), but the amendments retain the option for micro-entities to not prepare a directors’ report. Similarly, the amendments to the small companies filing requirements require the preparation of annual accounts in accordance with section 396. However, a small company will be required to file its profit and loss account and directors’ report. This will ensure that key information such as turnover is available on the public register. The changes will also remove the option for companies to prepare abridged accounts.
These amendments will make the filing requirements easier to understand, reduce fraud and error, and improve transparency."
I thank all responders. This was just a mind-wander, in anticipation of Companies House becoming yet another penalty raising regime for non-compliance to further legislation.
As a regular reader on this forum, it is abundantly clear that the individuals on here that are supervised by their respective professional bodies have a blinkered insight into the coercive nature of the current tranche of legislation, compared to those supervised by HMRC.
The ability to use personal judgement in something like a "risk assessment", that can later be criticised as inadequate by a supervising body, is the same as Companies House's new ability to provide its own interpretation of "appropriate".
Whilst I applaud the attempt to improve the integrity of data held at Companies House, which is decades overdue, I can see the Treasury licking its lips at the by-product - the opportunity for further fund raising, all in the name of coercion towards compliance.
Regardless of FRS 105, there are over 700,000 dormant companies registered at Companies House. Do the maths and follow the money.
Domains have to be bought, and that constitutes a transaction. Agents will have to be registered with Companies House in order to submit on behalf of another party. I doubt very much that there will be no administration charges for registering as an agent.
Perhaps my mind is wandering too far now, for which I can only apologize. No more comments necessary.
“Registered email address
88A Duty to maintain a registered email address
(1) A company must ensure that its registered email address is at all times
an appropriate email address.
(2) An email address is an “appropriate email address” if, in the ordinary
course of events, emails sent to it by the registrar would be expected to
come to the attention of a person acting on behalf of the company.
(3) If a company fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with this
section an offence is committed by—
(a) the company, and
(b) every officer of the company who is in default.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary
conviction—
(a) in England and Wales, to a fine;
(b) in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5
on the standard scale and, for continued contravention, a daily
default fine not exceeding one-tenth of level 5 on the standard
scale.
Thanks for your input on this. I have a lot of time for your valuable comments on here, and when you speak I must listen.
I totally understand the distinction you have made (I get subtlety which is why I'm having such a problem with this). The specific point from my last comment is that the sole practitioner is not a Principal in the supply of the medical care to the client and therefore does not comply with VAT requirements in a manner to allow exemption on his services. His relationship (and the services provided) is entirely with the Practices, not the clients. The supply of medical care services by the Practices to the clients, however, is obviously VAT exempt, regardless of whether by sub-contracted sole-proprietors or internal staff.
I'm not trying to have the last word here. I am trying to flush out the ultimate argument that will withstand HMRC's scrutiny. Please, please provide it.
"The associate dentists are not in partnership with the practice owner; each associate is self-employed and is an independent separate “business” for VAT purposes. Associate dentists generally have their own patients and supply their services as independent practitioners. They are not acting as agent or subcontractor for the practice owner ."
This does not apply in this case.
Are you certain you're not just reading what you want to see?
My answers
"ridicule that reigned on him"
I know, rained spelt wrong . . .
"Wow, the award for overthinker of the year goes to..."
Definitely the most favoured response - a sincere thank you.
My visits to this forum are usually for three things: to gain knowledge from betters, of which there are more than there are not; to understand different perspectives; to be entertained.
This small pebble in the pond has brought all three.
The contributors that have provided the links to current legislation are appreciated. The number of responses that have only looked at the here and now explain why the industry is always caught with its trousers down. It never ceases to surprise me how righteous some commentators are, but that is the balancing agent that enlightens the personal perspective. The occasional snippets of humour and wordplay always make the visits worthwhile in an otherwise soulless day.
I can only wonder how Darwin felt about the ridicule that reigned on him when he first suggested his theory of evolution, or how Orwell could possibly conceive the storylines to any of his literary insights into governmental and social influences. My twilight years are less comforting than I envisaged.
"my view that dormant accounts have no advantages whilst FRS105 is in effect in its current form"
The whole point is that the process to change the current form has now been started (in my opinion).
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/economic-crime-and-corporate-...
"4. How will filing requirements for small companies and micro-entities change?
The government will streamline the existing filing framework for small and micro entity companies.
Rather than having the filing obligations for small companies and micro-entities within the same section of the Companies Act 2006, the Bill splits the requirements into two sections, which aims to make the filing requirements clearer for companies to understand.
Under the new rules, micro-entities will be required to prepare annual accounts in accordance with the requirements of section 396 (which requires the preparation of a profit and loss account), but the amendments retain the option for micro-entities to not prepare a directors’ report. Similarly, the amendments to the small companies filing requirements require the preparation of annual accounts in accordance with section 396. However, a small company will be required to file its profit and loss account and directors’ report. This will ensure that key information such as turnover is available on the public register. The changes will also remove the option for companies to prepare abridged accounts.
These amendments will make the filing requirements easier to understand, reduce fraud and error, and improve transparency."
I thank all responders. This was just a mind-wander, in anticipation of Companies House becoming yet another penalty raising regime for non-compliance to further legislation.
As a regular reader on this forum, it is abundantly clear that the individuals on here that are supervised by their respective professional bodies have a blinkered insight into the coercive nature of the current tranche of legislation, compared to those supervised by HMRC.
The ability to use personal judgement in something like a "risk assessment", that can later be criticised as inadequate by a supervising body, is the same as Companies House's new ability to provide its own interpretation of "appropriate".
Whilst I applaud the attempt to improve the integrity of data held at Companies House, which is decades overdue, I can see the Treasury licking its lips at the by-product - the opportunity for further fund raising, all in the name of coercion towards compliance.
Regardless of FRS 105, there are over 700,000 dormant companies registered at Companies House. Do the maths and follow the money.
Domains have to be bought, and that constitutes a transaction. Agents will have to be registered with Companies House in order to submit on behalf of another party. I doubt very much that there will be no administration charges for registering as an agent.
Perhaps my mind is wandering too far now, for which I can only apologize. No more comments necessary.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0205/220205.pdf:
“Registered email address
88A Duty to maintain a registered email address
(1) A company must ensure that its registered email address is at all times
an appropriate email address.
(2) An email address is an “appropriate email address” if, in the ordinary
course of events, emails sent to it by the registrar would be expected to
come to the attention of a person acting on behalf of the company.
(3) If a company fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with this
section an offence is committed by—
(a) the company, and
(b) every officer of the company who is in default.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary
conviction—
(a) in England and Wales, to a fine;
(b) in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5
on the standard scale and, for continued contravention, a daily
default fine not exceeding one-tenth of level 5 on the standard
scale.
Cheers
Les
Thank you for the promptness of your comment, and for the affirmation of the conclusion.
The acquiring company and the new supplying company are not owned by the same individual/entities. A VAT Group is not an option.
The reference is very useful, thank you.
John
Whilst all of the answers thus far make practical sense, you will be well advised to read-up on the changes to rules regarding Data Protection.
Portia
Thanks for your input on this. I have a lot of time for your valuable comments on here, and when you speak I must listen.
I totally understand the distinction you have made (I get subtlety which is why I'm having such a problem with this). The specific point from my last comment is that the sole practitioner is not a Principal in the supply of the medical care to the client and therefore does not comply with VAT requirements in a manner to allow exemption on his services. His relationship (and the services provided) is entirely with the Practices, not the clients. The supply of medical care services by the Practices to the clients, however, is obviously VAT exempt, regardless of whether by sub-contracted sole-proprietors or internal staff.
I'm not trying to have the last word here. I am trying to flush out the ultimate argument that will withstand HMRC's scrutiny. Please, please provide it.
This is the extract from Kirkers reference point.
"The associate dentists are not in partnership with the practice owner; each associate is self-employed and is an independent separate “business” for VAT purposes. Associate dentists generally have their own patients and supply their services as independent practitioners. They are not acting as agent or subcontractor for the practice owner ."
This does not apply in this case.
Are you certain you're not just reading what you want to see?