If every person with a criminal conviction was jailed for life, then it would seem to be very convenient. Criminals would be non-persons, and none of us would ever have to make a decision about how to deal with them. But that's not how it is. They are out there, looking to re-integrate into society.
I worked with someone on the SOR (in a volunteer capacity) and he was a delight to work with. He had done his time, and was at least entitled to the presumption that he had resolved to sin no more. Compassion must walk hand in hand with justice in a modern society.
As accountants we more frequently come across someone whose previous business or businesses have failed. They may have left a lot of angry people behind them, many of whom would express outrage at the thought that these people are earning a living again in one way or another. But they don't just "go away". Many of us find that we are still stuck with the individual clients, even having suffered a bad debt of our own when the company went down. The decisions here are a bit more commercial; those lovely clients will not necessarily be at the top of your Christmas card list.
Your decision on your SOR client should also be commercial, but you might want to be a bit careful about the circumstances in which the client will have contact with members of your staff.
First, a guarantee company is a not-for-profit company because the model articles prohibit distributions. That can be changed - just delete or amend that one article by special resolution.
Then there is nothing to stop a guarantee company making a distribution to its members. It's not a 'dividend' (a word that I don't think you can find anywhere in the Companies Act) because that word generally implies shares. But you could make a distribution equally to the company's members, and that has the same tax consequences as a dividend.
Rather than the time-honoured columnar analysis approach, have you considered making a list of suppliers at the bottom of the table, then using SUMIF() to add up payments to each supplier - then you can allocate an expense category to each one.
The easy way to do this is the copy the entire 'suppliers' column in the table, and paste it down below (thus doubling the number of lines in the spreadsheet) - then on the data ribbon sort your new list into alphabetical order and remove duplicates. You will probably end up with duplication of suppliers, such as Bloggs, Bloggs Tunbridge Wells and Bloggs Ltd. It doesn't matter.
I know my friend Simon would prefer you to use a pivot table, but there's more than one way to skin a cat (don't try that at home).
Many thanks to the three practitioners who have responded so far.
The position is that Mother owned the whole of the property, which is thought to be worth around £425k. She has left 1/5 to Stepfather and 2/5 to each child (both adults). Accordingly, there is no IHT issue resulting from her death.
Stepfather has the right to remain living in the property for one year under the terms of the will, but this is likely to be succeeded by an informal arrangement with the same result. The three of them could sell the property, but I understand they have their eyes set on a more distant "planning gain" and will hang on for that.
My concerns are still twofold: Does Stepfather look like a life tenant on his death in (say) ten years' time? There's no guarantee that he will have other assets in his estate at that point, but I don't think it's for me to speculate on that at this point.
The other issue is the 3% surcharge on SDLT for the sons. Neither is contemplating a sale just now, but one of them lives in job-related accommodation and has a property elsewhere, so could be caught for a surcharge on trading that up (you can avoid the charge if you sell a property which has been your home within 2 years prior to sale).
We are not dealing with big numbers here, but constructive thoughts would be welcomed.
It comes to something when even people who consider that at least they sound knowledgeable embrace the grocer's apostrophe. We must fight this: civilisation is at stake!
I would not commit myself to new accounting software - perhaps to be used for many years - without taking a look at the accounts for the software company on the Companies House website. Prelude Accounts is written and sold by Diamond Discovery Ltd.
As initiator of the OP, I'd like to thank everybody for their contributions thus far. I'm left with the feeling that HMRC has created a complete muddle, and that we are all struggling.
A highly respectable firm of Chartered Accountants has published something that includes the following example:
"Mr Bloggs owns a property and provides carpets, white goods and curtains. He has let the property for a number of years and claimed the renewals cost of items as deductible as each needed replacement. ... From 6 April 2013 none of these costs are deductible.After seeking advice, Mr Bloggs has acquired a Sofa and a Bed for the property. Together with the items he had previously offered, the property can now be considered ‘fully furnished’ with wear and tear allowance available." Instinctively, I find this advice is alarming. What do others think? No-one has been able to point me to anything very definitive from HMRC, beyond the draft guidance which is primarily (and possibly even exclusively) about plant and machinery. For now, I think some of the very clear statements about the abolition of renewals for let property currently to be found on the websites of many firms are open to at least an element of doubt, and I think the muddle will go on for some little while.
My answers
If every person with a criminal conviction was jailed for life, then it would seem to be very convenient. Criminals would be non-persons, and none of us would ever have to make a decision about how to deal with them. But that's not how it is. They are out there, looking to re-integrate into society.
I worked with someone on the SOR (in a volunteer capacity) and he was a delight to work with. He had done his time, and was at least entitled to the presumption that he had resolved to sin no more. Compassion must walk hand in hand with justice in a modern society.
As accountants we more frequently come across someone whose previous business or businesses have failed. They may have left a lot of angry people behind them, many of whom would express outrage at the thought that these people are earning a living again in one way or another. But they don't just "go away". Many of us find that we are still stuck with the individual clients, even having suffered a bad debt of our own when the company went down. The decisions here are a bit more commercial; those lovely clients will not necessarily be at the top of your Christmas card list.
Your decision on your SOR client should also be commercial, but you might want to be a bit careful about the circumstances in which the client will have contact with members of your staff.
First, a guarantee company is a not-for-profit company because the model articles prohibit distributions. That can be changed - just delete or amend that one article by special resolution.
Then there is nothing to stop a guarantee company making a distribution to its members. It's not a 'dividend' (a word that I don't think you can find anywhere in the Companies Act) because that word generally implies shares. But you could make a distribution equally to the company's members, and that has the same tax consequences as a dividend.
Rather than the time-honoured columnar analysis approach, have you considered making a list of suppliers at the bottom of the table, then using SUMIF() to add up payments to each supplier - then you can allocate an expense category to each one.
The easy way to do this is the copy the entire 'suppliers' column in the table, and paste it down below (thus doubling the number of lines in the spreadsheet) - then on the data ribbon sort your new list into alphabetical order and remove duplicates. You will probably end up with duplication of suppliers, such as Bloggs, Bloggs Tunbridge Wells and Bloggs Ltd. It doesn't matter.
I know my friend Simon would prefer you to use a pivot table, but there's more than one way to skin a cat (don't try that at home).
Many thanks to the three practitioners who have responded so far.
The position is that Mother owned the whole of the property, which is thought to be worth around £425k. She has left 1/5 to Stepfather and 2/5 to each child (both adults). Accordingly, there is no IHT issue resulting from her death.
Stepfather has the right to remain living in the property for one year under the terms of the will, but this is likely to be succeeded by an informal arrangement with the same result. The three of them could sell the property, but I understand they have their eyes set on a more distant "planning gain" and will hang on for that.
My concerns are still twofold: Does Stepfather look like a life tenant on his death in (say) ten years' time? There's no guarantee that he will have other assets in his estate at that point, but I don't think it's for me to speculate on that at this point.
The other issue is the 3% surcharge on SDLT for the sons. Neither is contemplating a sale just now, but one of them lives in job-related accommodation and has a property elsewhere, so could be caught for a surcharge on trading that up (you can avoid the charge if you sell a property which has been your home within 2 years prior to sale).
We are not dealing with big numbers here, but constructive thoughts would be welcomed.
Did you mean "dress down Fridays"?
It comes to something when even people who consider that at least they sound knowledgeable embrace the grocer's apostrophe. We must fight this: civilisation is at stake!
This is probably a small client, who is probably more trouble than the fee income justifies. Can you suggest some other lucky accountant?
Capium - £943,000 of capitalised software and zero amortisation. I wish them luck; I think they'll need it.
I would not commit myself to new accounting software - perhaps to be used for many years - without taking a look at the accounts for the software company on the Companies House website. Prelude Accounts is written and sold by Diamond Discovery Ltd.
Thanks to everybody
As initiator of the OP, I'd like to thank everybody for their contributions thus far. I'm left with the feeling that HMRC has created a complete muddle, and that we are all struggling.
A highly respectable firm of Chartered Accountants has published something that includes the following example:
"Mr Bloggs owns a property and provides carpets, white goods and curtains. He has let the property for a number of years and claimed the renewals cost of items as deductible as each needed replacement. ... From 6 April 2013 none of these costs are deductible. After seeking advice, Mr Bloggs has acquired a Sofa and a Bed for the property. Together with the items he had previously offered, the property can now be considered ‘fully furnished’ with wear and tear allowance available." Instinctively, I find this advice is alarming. What do others think? No-one has been able to point me to anything very definitive from HMRC, beyond the draft guidance which is primarily (and possibly even exclusively) about plant and machinery. For now, I think some of the very clear statements about the abolition of renewals for let property currently to be found on the websites of many firms are open to at least an element of doubt, and I think the muddle will go on for some little while.
A quick question is one to which the inquisitor desires an answer but not an accompanying bill.