I agree...I guess my issue is that line moves depending upon who you are...imagine the following scenarios:
1) Village idiot - drug taking history - interviews for a position of responsibility - drug history comes up...says sorry - d'ya reckon he would be considered for the job?
2) Apparently intelligent person (taking class A drugs kinda tests that theory) - same as above but 'profusely' apologises....
I think you get two different treatments....how pragmatic are you with the village idiot....as compared to the manipulative intelligent 'good with his words' person....
I just love the way MPs try to waive away previous misdemeanors committed as trivial because they were 'honest and upfront' about them (what before the papers released said details you mean). Oh and he was young (what nearly 30....kids of 6 have a good idea of right and wrong....)
But he was 'profusely' sorry.....(where is the line, fraud, assault etc.....)….
there is always someone who will pay more.....the only question then is will you be happier (is it longer hours/shorter lunch break/further to travel etc).
When I was really ambitious I would have gone anywhere....now I work 15 mins from work...free parking....good hours....nice people.....what I do now for sure is that where ever you go you have to deal with the same old [***]....(whether that is work/people/clients....)
I wasn't sure whether to stand up and applaud....I think I warmed to this one when the sentence containing 'half wit' was used (suggesting any numpty can fill in a return!?). Although on reflection I presume he can fill in the right box he just doesn't have a clue what number to put in their?!
they couldn't possibly be a member of a professional body acting like that.....!
Your options:
1) spend hours doing letters/making phone calls/ taking actions, for which you will neither be thanked or paid by the client - but perhaps score a moral victory over the previous agent.
2) Take a pragmatic view to the information required treating in the most appropriate way.
The fee thing is not your fight....the client can choose not to pay and assuming they haven't signed any such agreement (whether actual or implied) then they will not have to worry about anything.
35 years of making a successful business....in that case you really should now better. There is nothing 'common' about 'common sense'...it seems to be an endangered species these days....
I visit my local costa on a regular basis and it is frustrating when the machine goes down and they only take cash. That said it appears according to David that that is quite obviously fraudulent activity....really!?
There's one thing to be said about cash....it is unlikely to be spent outside of the local community (if indeed fraudulent activity is taking place), unlike the cash earned by some of our less scrupulous millionaires and global companies. I know which I prefer....
wouldn't the main reason for not amending the return be to not extend the enquiry window?
Technically the prior year is not incorrect and the claim for the losses is being made in the current year so an amendment to the prior year is unnecessary (and dare I say incorrect in the circumstances) - but of course you are dependant on HMRC doing their job in the current year so can understand why you would take that action.
of course you are quite correct....I am simply putting forward that unlike say a car without fuel which is still a car (you would struggle to argue could be easily turned into a hen house), a mobile phone without a sim (lets say an iPhone) is a bit like an ipad (smaller but essentially all of the same functionality....I does wonder what you would call that....a computer maybe?
HMRC by concession allow smart phones to be treated like mobile phones...but in reality they are a computer with phone capabilities. I am just suggesting without a sim card they are closer to being an ipad/tablet than simply a phone without phone functions.
Do you not recall the iPhone 4 issues where you couldn't make a call due to the design....that is how much they considered the 'phone' element of that design….
My answers
I thought the word 'disingenious' was only reserved for MP's....
So go on, tell me, how many loans made within these schemes have ever been repaid (just as a matter of course)....is it even single figures?
Wow its like me saying I clearly never go above the speed limit because I have never been caught.
I agree...I guess my issue is that line moves depending upon who you are...imagine the following scenarios:
1) Village idiot - drug taking history - interviews for a position of responsibility - drug history comes up...says sorry - d'ya reckon he would be considered for the job?
2) Apparently intelligent person (taking class A drugs kinda tests that theory) - same as above but 'profusely' apologises....
I think you get two different treatments....how pragmatic are you with the village idiot....as compared to the manipulative intelligent 'good with his words' person....
I just love the way MPs try to waive away previous misdemeanors committed as trivial because they were 'honest and upfront' about them (what before the papers released said details you mean). Oh and he was young (what nearly 30....kids of 6 have a good idea of right and wrong....)
But he was 'profusely' sorry.....(where is the line, fraud, assault etc.....)….
there is always someone who will pay more.....the only question then is will you be happier (is it longer hours/shorter lunch break/further to travel etc).
When I was really ambitious I would have gone anywhere....now I work 15 mins from work...free parking....good hours....nice people.....what I do now for sure is that where ever you go you have to deal with the same old [***]....(whether that is work/people/clients....)
sorry Stepurhan….did you not read the part:
"I declare all my earnings even cash payments"
I wasn't sure whether to stand up and applaud....I think I warmed to this one when the sentence containing 'half wit' was used (suggesting any numpty can fill in a return!?). Although on reflection I presume he can fill in the right box he just doesn't have a clue what number to put in their?!
they couldn't possibly be a member of a professional body acting like that.....!
Your options:
1) spend hours doing letters/making phone calls/ taking actions, for which you will neither be thanked or paid by the client - but perhaps score a moral victory over the previous agent.
2) Take a pragmatic view to the information required treating in the most appropriate way.
The fee thing is not your fight....the client can choose not to pay and assuming they haven't signed any such agreement (whether actual or implied) then they will not have to worry about anything.
Principles are great but don't pay the bills.
35 years of making a successful business....in that case you really should now better. There is nothing 'common' about 'common sense'...it seems to be an endangered species these days....
I visit my local costa on a regular basis and it is frustrating when the machine goes down and they only take cash. That said it appears according to David that that is quite obviously fraudulent activity....really!?
There's one thing to be said about cash....it is unlikely to be spent outside of the local community (if indeed fraudulent activity is taking place), unlike the cash earned by some of our less scrupulous millionaires and global companies. I know which I prefer....
wouldn't the main reason for not amending the return be to not extend the enquiry window?
Technically the prior year is not incorrect and the claim for the losses is being made in the current year so an amendment to the prior year is unnecessary (and dare I say incorrect in the circumstances) - but of course you are dependant on HMRC doing their job in the current year so can understand why you would take that action.
of course you are quite correct....I am simply putting forward that unlike say a car without fuel which is still a car (you would struggle to argue could be easily turned into a hen house), a mobile phone without a sim (lets say an iPhone) is a bit like an ipad (smaller but essentially all of the same functionality....I does wonder what you would call that....a computer maybe?
HMRC by concession allow smart phones to be treated like mobile phones...but in reality they are a computer with phone capabilities. I am just suggesting without a sim card they are closer to being an ipad/tablet than simply a phone without phone functions.
Do you not recall the iPhone 4 issues where you couldn't make a call due to the design....that is how much they considered the 'phone' element of that design….