I'm up to date with everyone who's came in. The ones I'm not are those who have ignored my letters most likely because I'm last in the pecking order and they don't have the funds.
However an extension in my case would only lead to those people continuing to ignore me and quite frankly I'd rather not extend the deadline.
Not only does this allow me to put some pressure on those persistant last minute clients but it would actually help to regain some lost fees this year.
If we extend it a month, that will have a knock on affect to next year and those same people will probably be late once again. Its a no from me.
No need for this at all, it will simply move the workflow peak forward a few months, the same clients each year that leave it until January to do anything will instead wait until March or whenever.
It will also screw up office cash flows which is the last thing any small practitioner with a few staff needs right now.
No doubt the ICAEW will go with whatever the big firms want, as usual.
OK, a little tongue in cheek comment but since when has the ICAEW had an active interest in protecting the "small fry" local general practitioners? If they had then extensive lobbying could have made at least the tax side of our profession a "qualified only" trade like the lawyers.
I took on a couple of the ex-Pearce clients and have seen at first hand what happened. His attraction... he was quick and cheap, they paid less tax and he often got them tax repayments. Key issues for many small sole trader clients in any area.
Seriously, there will always be bad apples, qualified or not. Its just refreshing when they get caught.
Now all the ICAEW needs to do is PUBLICISE THIS CASE!!!!!
The comments were recorded at a conference BEFORE his appointment, an expert in his field so recruited to help reduce evasion... knee-jerk reaction to a non-story by the government and forced to step down.
So what level of services is HMRC saying is necessary to qualify as a business for BPR ?
I have a client with 10+ letting units on one site, they provide full laundry and cleaning services and amenities like a pool etc. Is this enough? What more could (should) they do?
As said in the article, there are a range of qualifying commercial options if it was essential that a LR Discovery was the base vehicle. They could have customised it however they wanted as a manufacturer.
Unlucky but badly advised... if they even sought advice.
When in Cornwell (sic) I always buy a hot pasty to eat there and then. I buy it with the intention of eating it hot in the same way I would purchase hot chips.
What ever happens any food which is generally sold as hot should all have the same rules applied.
We need simple rules on things like this.
Whats to say Macdonalds would then sell burgers and say that they expect people to eat them cold.
Perhaps a lower rate of say 5% on all food provided hot and then 20% on sit in eateries.
We need a level playing field.
Sorry for the Cornish Pasty but I will still buy you with the VAT, however I am not likely to buy you if you were cold!
Totally agree with the above, what is the difference between buying a take away pasty and fish and chips... answer none, so the VAT treatment should be the same. Now you can argue that there should be a different VAT rate for take away food and that does have its merits too, but that's a totally different argument. This change give us consistency and a level playing field for food suppliers like McD,the local chippie and the pasty shop.
If Greggs feel so strongly about its effect on their customers, will they consider absorbing the VAT increase from their not insignificant profits? Unlikely I feel.
My answers
Good point well made.
No need for this at all, it will simply move the workflow peak forward a few months, the same clients each year that leave it until January to do anything will instead wait until March or whenever.
It will also screw up office cash flows which is the last thing any small practitioner with a few staff needs right now.
No doubt the ICAEW will go with whatever the big firms want, as usual.
Why on earth HMRC can't incorporate some form of 64-8 in the SA Return has puzzled me for many years.
It would be so simple... maybe that's why it hasn't been done!
Waste of space
Not Valtteri, he's a very good driver...
What was the point of that inane drivel of an "article" and what relevance?
Anyone who can draw a parallel between accountancy and the ability to drive an F1 car competitively is really clutching at straws!
The profession is to blame...
OK, a little tongue in cheek comment but since when has the ICAEW had an active interest in protecting the "small fry" local general practitioners? If they had then extensive lobbying could have made at least the tax side of our profession a "qualified only" trade like the lawyers.
I took on a couple of the ex-Pearce clients and have seen at first hand what happened. His attraction... he was quick and cheap, they paid less tax and he often got them tax repayments. Key issues for many small sole trader clients in any area.
Seriously, there will always be bad apples, qualified or not. Its just refreshing when they get caught.
Now all the ICAEW needs to do is PUBLICISE THIS CASE!!!!!
Utter farce
So now we are governed by BBC and Private Eye?
The comments were recorded at a conference BEFORE his appointment, an expert in his field so recruited to help reduce evasion... knee-jerk reaction to a non-story by the government and forced to step down.
The country has gone barking mad.
FHL "Additional services"
So what level of services is HMRC saying is necessary to qualify as a business for BPR ?
I have a client with 10+ letting units on one site, they provide full laundry and cleaning services and amenities like a pool etc. Is this enough? What more could (should) they do?
Thanks
What were they thinking?
As said in the article, there are a range of qualifying commercial options if it was essential that a LR Discovery was the base vehicle. They could have customised it however they wanted as a manufacturer.
Unlucky but badly advised... if they even sought advice.
VAT on takeaway food
Totally agree with the above, what is the difference between buying a take away pasty and fish and chips... answer none, so the VAT treatment should be the same. Now you can argue that there should be a different VAT rate for take away food and that does have its merits too, but that's a totally different argument. This change give us consistency and a level playing field for food suppliers like McD,the local chippie and the pasty shop.
If Greggs feel so strongly about its effect on their customers, will they consider absorbing the VAT increase from their not insignificant profits? Unlikely I feel.