Thanks to all for your various responses. I'll see what (if anything) is sent out to the reg'd office before re-trying! (I'll do anything to avoid attempted telephone contact - life is too short for me to spend it on that!)
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll give it a try! I've requested details of the UTR to be sent to the reg'd office so it will be interesting to see when/(if) that turns up.
Many thanks for your reply. Could you please point me in the direction of where your reference to the 3 years come from? I hadn't seen this before, (from an admittedly very cursory review), and had only found references to (possibly) 20 years? I can't see partial exemption issues arising as the land had been used throughout the period for cattle farming (all income being zero or standard rated) . I'm only looking at this whole situation now in anticipation of a possible future sale, (which I am trying to persuade him might be an option).
The land was purchased outright with no option to tax. Since its purchase, cattle farming activity has been conducted by the client (zero rated outputs only with the exception of other standard rated contracting services). I don't see any issue with the land itself, only a possible clawback of tax on the building that was put on it.
Was in a comparably similar boat (except with ICAEW) and couldn't face the prospect/stress even if I realistically felt that I would not have any issues arising, having endured 2 previous QADs over the (too many!) years but with no problems. I resigned from ICAEW in early Feb. and although imminently expect to fully retire, applied to register with HMRC just to "see my remaining work time out". However, despite absolutely no reaction, as yet, from HMRC I'm still entitled to practice pro-term despite that lack of ICAEW supervision. If they don't register me very soon I shall simply cancel my application and get a refund! In any event, if the income is less than £5K you can theoretically get a reduction anyway in due course. It's quite a relief to not have that supervisory sword of Damocles (ICAEW) over your head any longer!
I agree that a complete 6 year handover is the way to go! However whilst passing that info. to the new agent goes a long way towards resolving the problem, it still leaves the issue raised of whether any assistance can be provided if called upon to do so. I'm certainly not at all sure how the issues raised re ML and insurance etc. might fit into that scenario, (and it could certainly be the proverbial "spanner in the works")! Whilst not wishing to leave any new agent at a disadvantage, for lack of relevant info., I would need to balance that with not wanting to prejudice my own position vis-a-vis being seen as , in some way, still acting. Difficult .....!
In response to the AML query - Yes! I am certainly taking the view that AML supervision is no longer required if you have ceased acting for any clients. The general nature of AML supervision must tend to always relate primarily to ongoing work (although also intended to ensure historical compliance). If no ongoing work is being conducted I would certainly not expect to have a need for any form of supervisory registration. Whilst the powers that be have the ability to enquire into your past practices and records etc., there is nothing for any official body to monitor going forward. I will definitely not be registering (e.g.) with a government body once I have stopped (as an alternative to ICAEW). Even if basic ICAEW membership were to be retained (the practice having ceased), they wouldn't have any ongoing activities to supervise so continuing ML "compliance" would be neither necessary nor required.
I am in an absolutely identical position! I may be wrong (and happy to be corrected) but I am taking the view that as soon as I cease to do any chargeable work for clients (i.e. after 31 December) I shall no longer need any ongoing PII other than the run-off cover as I am not carrying out any new work which could be subject to any claim. The handover relates to old work and if any liability should exist from it, this will already be covered.
The queried issue regarding AML is, in my view, only to maintain the required records for the stipulated periods. I have no current intention to do anything beyond that! TBH the mere existence of MLR is the principal reason for calling it a day with all of the stress and effort that it creates. Do you want to pay the gov't for MLR instead of ICAEW?
I am also not renewing my DDR for Data Protection. The data may be held on my files for the requisite period but it isn't being used or going anywhere (apart from relating to the handover)!
The implication that all of those ongoing costs will never end sounds suspiciously like Hotel California ~ Check out any time you like but you can never leave!
Once my resignation to the ICAEW is submitted (and hopefully accepted) my ongoing obligations are, in my view, only those required by law regarding holding records for specified periods etc. Please feel free to disagree if you wish - I would welcome any comments as I am in the same position which has been been concluded with my above expressed views
Many thanks for your response (a 3rd party's review/agreement is always reassuring)! This was also my own interpretation, based solely upon the nature of the business of the Managing Agent itself not falling into any of the other categories mentioned (that would have then required registration).
My answers
Thanks to all for your various responses. I'll see what (if anything) is sent out to the reg'd office before re-trying! (I'll do anything to avoid attempted telephone contact - life is too short for me to spend it on that!)
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll give it a try! I've requested details of the UTR to be sent to the reg'd office so it will be interesting to see when/(if) that turns up.
Many thanks for your reply. Could you please point me in the direction of where your reference to the 3 years come from? I hadn't seen this before, (from an admittedly very cursory review), and had only found references to (possibly) 20 years? I can't see partial exemption issues arising as the land had been used throughout the period for cattle farming (all income being zero or standard rated) . I'm only looking at this whole situation now in anticipation of a possible future sale, (which I am trying to persuade him might be an option).
The land was purchased outright with no option to tax. Since its purchase, cattle farming activity has been conducted by the client (zero rated outputs only with the exception of other standard rated contracting services). I don't see any issue with the land itself, only a possible clawback of tax on the building that was put on it.
Was in a comparably similar boat (except with ICAEW) and couldn't face the prospect/stress even if I realistically felt that I would not have any issues arising, having endured 2 previous QADs over the (too many!) years but with no problems. I resigned from ICAEW in early Feb. and although imminently expect to fully retire, applied to register with HMRC just to "see my remaining work time out". However, despite absolutely no reaction, as yet, from HMRC I'm still entitled to practice pro-term despite that lack of ICAEW supervision. If they don't register me very soon I shall simply cancel my application and get a refund! In any event, if the income is less than £5K you can theoretically get a reduction anyway in due course. It's quite a relief to not have that supervisory sword of Damocles (ICAEW) over your head any longer!
I agree that a complete 6 year handover is the way to go! However whilst passing that info. to the new agent goes a long way towards resolving the problem, it still leaves the issue raised of whether any assistance can be provided if called upon to do so. I'm certainly not at all sure how the issues raised re ML and insurance etc. might fit into that scenario, (and it could certainly be the proverbial "spanner in the works")! Whilst not wishing to leave any new agent at a disadvantage, for lack of relevant info., I would need to balance that with not wanting to prejudice my own position vis-a-vis being seen as , in some way, still acting. Difficult .....!
I think that there is a fee to pay for this unless you've had 50 years membership.
In response to the AML query - Yes! I am certainly taking the view that AML supervision is no longer required if you have ceased acting for any clients. The general nature of AML supervision must tend to always relate primarily to ongoing work (although also intended to ensure historical compliance). If no ongoing work is being conducted I would certainly not expect to have a need for any form of supervisory registration. Whilst the powers that be have the ability to enquire into your past practices and records etc., there is nothing for any official body to monitor going forward. I will definitely not be registering (e.g.) with a government body once I have stopped (as an alternative to ICAEW). Even if basic ICAEW membership were to be retained (the practice having ceased), they wouldn't have any ongoing activities to supervise so continuing ML "compliance" would be neither necessary nor required.
I am in an absolutely identical position! I may be wrong (and happy to be corrected) but I am taking the view that as soon as I cease to do any chargeable work for clients (i.e. after 31 December) I shall no longer need any ongoing PII other than the run-off cover as I am not carrying out any new work which could be subject to any claim. The handover relates to old work and if any liability should exist from it, this will already be covered.
The queried issue regarding AML is, in my view, only to maintain the required records for the stipulated periods. I have no current intention to do anything beyond that! TBH the mere existence of MLR is the principal reason for calling it a day with all of the stress and effort that it creates. Do you want to pay the gov't for MLR instead of ICAEW?
I am also not renewing my DDR for Data Protection. The data may be held on my files for the requisite period but it isn't being used or going anywhere (apart from relating to the handover)!
The implication that all of those ongoing costs will never end sounds suspiciously like Hotel California ~ Check out any time you like but you can never leave!
Once my resignation to the ICAEW is submitted (and hopefully accepted) my ongoing obligations are, in my view, only those required by law regarding holding records for specified periods etc. Please feel free to disagree if you wish - I would welcome any comments as I am in the same position which has been been concluded with my above expressed views
Many thanks for your response (a 3rd party's review/agreement is always reassuring)! This was also my own interpretation, based solely upon the nature of the business of the Managing Agent itself not falling into any of the other categories mentioned (that would have then required registration).