Member Since: 21st Jun 2014
30th Jan 2020
To my mind, there are clearly two culprits here, the finance director/senior financial management and the auditors. The finance director for not asking the right questions and not proactively managing the business systems. In my early professional days, I have witnessed many an FD and Financial Controller who failed in this regard being sacked.
The auditors clearly have seriously failed here. It costs nothing to ask a question and probe into the numbers. Again, in my experience as a senior finance manager of a high tech manufacturing company, I was often required to explain inventory systems and the results they produced to our auditors - they asked the right questions. To my mind, it appears this audit has simply been a tick box exercise.
1st Dec 2019
No, I did not read the case as I assumed quite reasonably that article included all salient facts. Clearly you have 'dug' into this case and revealed more! The point I was making was that a sample of one is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion concerning the split of cash/credit card payments over time - this is based on applying basic statistical theory.
If the restaurant owners chose to settle on that basis then so be it. Perhaps it was to their advantage! But that is a different matter.
29th Nov 2019
I am surprised that HMRC got away with this on the basis of one sample. At least three or more visits, perhaps on different days to get a better estimate should have been made. Also, the estimate of the waiter should be discounted as it could be argued that he would not have full information.
14th Oct 2019
FFS isn't about time that this nonsense was 'knocked on the head' Child allowance should only be granted if a claimant and partner can show one or other income does not exceed the given threshold. and just remove any taper.