We have a client running Sage - one VAt registration as one company - but three seperate "companies" set up on Sage as three types of trade (OK - should be set up as departmenst but was done this way by a previous advisor).
When the client called Sage to ask about MTD reporting of one VAT return she wa advised that the only way would be to run the company consolidation routine each quarter.
Thanks for that - it is what I thought. However, as no backups taken by client at all then no possibilty of going back to a position before P60 run. So I guess it is the manual route.
So, if this occurs again next year, and the losses bfd are all used up, if the balance sheet goes into credit with reserves available, do IR35 rules allow voting of a dividend ? Or would that somehow affect the deemed payment situation?
Again - sorry if this is obvioous to some but the guidance I find from HMRC talks mainly about the deemed payment etc., and verry little about the affect on the company.
Filed 7 payrolls yesterday. Had email acknowledgment on all of them - multiple times - one payroll has 8 email acknowledgments but still my payroll software cannot pick up the submission receipt!
Have 2 clients who recently discovered that the RTI dashboard is incorrect.
One client has apparently overpaid by almost £6000 this year - on looking at the dashboard it is clear that 3 PAYE payments made correctly have been recorded twice - once each in the month made and showing as a payment, and then each again in a seperate month as CIS tax suffered (exactly the same amounts) - client has suffered no CIS deductions this year or last.
In the other case client has received a notice saying they overpaid last year (which they did not) - they assumed it would be reallocated to this year so checked dashboard for this year only to find that the monthly amounts due were different to the submissions. A clser look shows that the RTI system has, in 2 instances, allocated SMP claims in the month before they were made 9 ie claim in mth 3 showing in month 2 totals) thus creating negative figures for amounts due. Payments then seemingly allocated to different months than that to which they belong - and total payments in overall disagreement to amount paid.
What chance does anybody stand of sorting things out - business people mostly do their best but this is getting crazy.
What is most annoying about this wonderful system is its tendency to let you ask all of the questions - then cut you off because all of the "helpers" are busy. would it not be more logical to tell you the lines are busy and cut you off before wasting your time answering the questions?
I have a client who is computer phobicand did not have a client login. He got behind with PAYE payments, but then caught up by making several lump sum payments. HMRC wrote to say he had overpaid, asking for an explanation why - if no explanation is provided "we will keep your money".
He passed the letter to me - but HMRC would not speak to me as "you only hold online authority" - so I wrote in with a full schedule detailing amounts due and payments made, including interest added by HMRC (from their own letter) and reconciling the amount due back to their figures.
HMRC then replied saying that we had to provide details of which payments were allocated to which months liabilities - which we cannot do so as they did the allocation of the round sum amounts paid. HMRC collectors office did sympathise (they actaully did speak to me) but said they could do nothing as I held no authority - and in the time all this has taken the business has ceased to trade and the PAYE scheme has been closed - so HMRC will not accept a 64-8.
As phone calls from the client seem to have no effect I suppose the next thing is to get client to write a letter to HMRC - which I suppose I will have to draft!
My client was not that specific - are they ever - he just recalled the judge saying it was not taxable. The amount awarded was, I understand, £350, being calculated sinmply as 2 days at £175, and as far as I know this amount was simply added to the actual costs. I am unsure how the court could calculate a figure after tax anyway.
Presumably your A N Other is referring to the use of Approved Mileage Rates by a self employed person in their accounts claim for tax, not just the VAT aspect. Is it not still the case that use of the mileage rates in a P+L (as opposed to the actual expenses incurred) is restricted to businesses with turnover below the VAT threshold?
My answers
We have a client running Sage - one VAt registration as one company - but three seperate "companies" set up on Sage as three types of trade (OK - should be set up as departmenst but was done this way by a previous advisor).
When the client called Sage to ask about MTD reporting of one VAT return she wa advised that the only way would be to run the company consolidation routine each quarter.
Thanks for that - it is what I thought. However, as no backups taken by client at all then no possibilty of going back to a position before P60 run. So I guess it is the manual route.
Thanks.
So, if this occurs again next year, and the losses bfd are all used up, if the balance sheet goes into credit with reserves available, do IR35 rules allow voting of a dividend ? Or would that somehow affect the deemed payment situation?
Again - sorry if this is obvioous to some but the guidance I find from HMRC talks mainly about the deemed payment etc., and verry little about the affect on the company.
Filed 7 payrolls yesterday.
Filed 7 payrolls yesterday. Had email acknowledgment on all of them - multiple times - one payroll has 8 email acknowledgments but still my payroll software cannot pick up the submission receipt!
And this is fixed?
System quite clearly not fit for purpose
Have 2 clients who recently discovered that the RTI dashboard is incorrect.
One client has apparently overpaid by almost £6000 this year - on looking at the dashboard it is clear that 3 PAYE payments made correctly have been recorded twice - once each in the month made and showing as a payment, and then each again in a seperate month as CIS tax suffered (exactly the same amounts) - client has suffered no CIS deductions this year or last.
In the other case client has received a notice saying they overpaid last year (which they did not) - they assumed it would be reallocated to this year so checked dashboard for this year only to find that the monthly amounts due were different to the submissions. A clser look shows that the RTI system has, in 2 instances, allocated SMP claims in the month before they were made 9 ie claim in mth 3 showing in month 2 totals) thus creating negative figures for amounts due. Payments then seemingly allocated to different months than that to which they belong - and total payments in overall disagreement to amount paid.
What chance does anybody stand of sorting things out - business people mostly do their best but this is getting crazy.
We submitted 2 SA returns and 3 RTI submissions yesterday evening.
Up to now have received no acknowledgments in software at all, and no email ackowledgments for the SA returns.
However, we have received 5 email ackowledgments for the RTI submissions - 2 of them twice.
Cuts you off!
What is most annoying about this wonderful system is its tendency to let you ask all of the questions - then cut you off because all of the "helpers" are busy. would it not be more logical to tell you the lines are busy and cut you off before wasting your time answering the questions?
Familiar story
I have a client who is computer phobicand did not have a client login. He got behind with PAYE payments, but then caught up by making several lump sum payments. HMRC wrote to say he had overpaid, asking for an explanation why - if no explanation is provided "we will keep your money".
He passed the letter to me - but HMRC would not speak to me as "you only hold online authority" - so I wrote in with a full schedule detailing amounts due and payments made, including interest added by HMRC (from their own letter) and reconciling the amount due back to their figures.
HMRC then replied saying that we had to provide details of which payments were allocated to which months liabilities - which we cannot do so as they did the allocation of the round sum amounts paid. HMRC collectors office did sympathise (they actaully did speak to me) but said they could do nothing as I held no authority - and in the time all this has taken the business has ceased to trade and the PAYE scheme has been closed - so HMRC will not accept a 64-8.
As phone calls from the client seem to have no effect I suppose the next thing is to get client to write a letter to HMRC - which I suppose I will have to draft!
Thanks for that - that was what I thought.
My client was not that specific - are they ever - he just recalled the judge saying it was not taxable. The amount awarded was, I understand, £350, being calculated sinmply as 2 days at £175, and as far as I know this amount was simply added to the actual costs. I am unsure how the court could calculate a figure after tax anyway.
Thanks again
Approved mileage rates
Presumably your A N Other is referring to the use of Approved Mileage Rates by a self employed person in their accounts claim for tax, not just the VAT aspect. Is it not still the case that use of the mileage rates in a P+L (as opposed to the actual expenses incurred) is restricted to businesses with turnover below the VAT threshold?