Member Since: 6th Dec 2013
19th May 2020
bernard michael wrote:
Is the invoice raising sector the furloughing employer? If not I don't recall seeing anything stopping that company employing him whilst he's still furloughed
You are allowed to go and work for another employer whist furloughed. I don't think this means carry on doing your existing job (or part of it) just as before, but the wages for that work being funnelled through another group company.
My thoughts are if it's subject to NIC aggregation or wouldn't qualify for EA, then it's dodgy.
18th May 2020
Hardly level- 20% CT followed by 20% IT on the 80% left, an effective rate of 36% for a basic rate taxpayer.
It's not quite level, no - but it would be a massive step towards it.
If people are unhappy then they could always pay themselves a salary instead...……….
18th May 2020
Raising taxes right now would be suicide. Not sure where all this talk as come from.
It's coming from Rishi outright telling the self employed when he launched the SEISS scheme that “There is currently an inconsistency in contribution between self-employed and employed ...………(snip)………………. especially as we look when we get through this and we’re all chipping in together to right the ship afterwards, [we’ll be] making sure that everyone’s doing their bit.”
18th May 2020
Seems to be a recurring theme with Samuel's companies:-
Still saves all that compliance malarkey.
Sounds like that company had some sizeable assets. Shame we never got to see the balance sheet before it got struck off...………..
16th May 2020
Over the next few years:
Increase class 4 to 20%
Increase BR dividend tax To 20%
Increase Corporation Tax to 20%
Level the playing field with employment. I thought the whole point of running a business was to incur or reap the risks and the rewards. The clamour from the business sector for equal treatment with employers suggests they have changed their mind so give them what they want.
Yes this would cause me untold misery but the people have spoken
14th May 2020
The grant relates to three months (March, April, May), so if accounting under the accruals basis you will need to pro-rate and include accrued income in the 19/20 return. This is assuming simple accounts to 31 Mar / 5 Apr, but depends on basis period.
No it doesn't.
Taxpayers get a grant equal to 80% of three months' average profits, subject to a cap of £2,500 if they 'have been disadvantaged'. If they went back to work on 27th April, for example, they still get three months.
I would say it is taxable based on the date it is received - although you could argue claim date or even entitlement date. March has nothing to do with it.
13th May 2020
We have had a mixture. We set out clearly at the outset that it was extra work, thus chargeable, gave them a formulaic matrix as to how we would charge and about a hundred or so payroll clients asked us to do it for them. Some local firms went freebie, others charged two or three times the amount we did. I'd imagine the issue only arises where you dramatically overcharge for the work.
I'm not aware of anyone (even the Gold/Silver/Bronze merchants) charging a percentage of the claim, but I'm sure some unscrupulous soul will have. We estimated the time cost but overall raised about £12k and claimed around £500k in the first week. I suppose it helps that this works out as a rather small percentage of the claims if you look at it that way.
12th May 2020
Wilson Philips wrote:
We currently have staff working at 80% of normal time for 80% of normal salary.
From 1 July, we furlough those staff but have them working 4 days out of 5, paying them as we do now. Claim £500 under JRS and pass on to employee?
1) Why are the employees working for 80% pay? Why weren't the excess staff furloughed and the rest paid to work - or if this seemed unfair and likely to cause problems, why weren't they furloughed by rotation so that everyone took turns in getting 80% (for nothing) and everyone took turns at earning 100%?
2) from 1 July I assume if they are working 80% and being paid 80% then no CJRS claim is required.
Whilst we don't know, I hope that your above example of milking the system wont be possible.
12th May 2020
The register isn't required to be dated with the date of the amendment/transfer update. It should be updated by the company but in fact this is often not done promptly. All the time it is out of date, the company may be committing an offence - but once it is brought up to date then all appears to be well. In the meantime, incorrect Returns may have been filed and I imagine this might be used by HMRC or others to contend that a transfer had not occurred or been formally registered. I don't think that affects the validity of the transfer however.
We took on a client where the shares had been transferred several years before a company sale, but it only got picked up when the sale was proceeding. The seller's accountants filed RP04s (second copies of documents previously filed) to 'correct' the last six or seven Annual Returns, and updated the register of members to reflect the position as it 'should' always have been.
Ultimately in this case the original transfer had not required stamping. I'm not sure what I would do in this position. I suppose if I had a stamped form (stamped at the time obviously) or had a copy of the original stock transfer form on file, and dividends had always been declared in the 'correct' shareholders names, I might be tempted to follow the RP04 route and deal with it as an administrative error. On the other hand, if a client suddenly 'remembered' that a transfer had occurred ages ago and asked me to help them recreate a stock transfer form and 'correct' the register then I'd tell them they were out of luck.
That said, we are probably edging into the field of corporate law, rather than accountancy. If this were a significant transaction for a client of mine, with any element of risk, I'd probably tell the client to take legal advice or approach a formation agent rather than try and deal with it myself. It does seem that there is a bit of flexibility in company secretarial compliance generally.
12th May 2020
I'm no employment lawyer, so I'm stumbling through this a little here and wouldn't give this advice to a client (or at least not without checking it via my own HR resources and suggesting they get legal advice to check it) but my gut feel is that if the employer takes all reasonable steps to ensure a safe workplace (and perhaps get a H&S consultant to review them) then they can probably insist that the employee comes back, or refuser to pay them/start disciplinary/etc.
If the employee feels that they have been coerced into an unsafe workplace then they may seek to make a claim against the employer for constructive dismissal.
1) How long has the employee been there? Less than two years? Risk probably very low to non existent anyway.
2) Make sure the employer has documented and can justify that they have made all reasonable alterations. This is where the H&S consultant report is handy.