I wonder why all these celebrities migrated to this accountant, I think he was the master of telling such clients what they wanted to hear, ' were the home dodging tax'.
I bet on refection most of his clients found Mr Mundays behaviour was unusual at best. But he was the master con-man. But I suppose its amazing what you can get away with if you tell people the net results of his such behaviour meant paying less tax. I dont think any off his clients he defrauded will get anything back.
The real moral of this story is 'if something appears to be to good to be true, it probably is'.
I haven't seen anything about this case other than the article above - but it appears to me that the fraud was committed by a reasonably junior (earning £33k p.a.) member of staff so I doubt the perpetrator was all too involved in client contact(?).
This is one reason why I try to avoid having any online banking access for clients, and where I have to or they insist, I try and get it read only or otherwise restricted. I also prefer that any access is held at partner level only - I'd rather be inconvenienced by my manager asking me to run reports than have to explain to a client why half a million quid has gone missing without my knowledge.
I'm also fairly surprised by the number of clients willing to grant me complete access to their bank accounts containing (in some cases) hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds. It's only when I explain my reservations that they seem to realise the stupidity of what they were suggesting.
I take your point about the exception to registration being available but withdrawal from MTD not being an option.
In your earlier paragraph you mention that it is likely to be several months later, when preparing annual accounts, that we realise that the client has exceeded the MTD threshold. As such, we have to assume that it will be the same case for the trader with a 'one off' sale exceeding the registration threshold, in which case they aren't likely to apply for exception from registration within 30 days are they?
So I don't think future 'blips' are a good enough reason to de-register. If a client is below MTD and then happens to exceed it and be late implementing it, then surely that is better than de-registering, having a blip, failing to re-register and finding out ten months later that VAT should have been charged for some time.
Trethi Teg wrote:
Suppliers (e.g. decorators merchants) will have to know which customers are VAT registered and which are not. This means asking EVERY customer the question (how do they know who is a builder and who isn;t) and those that say that they are will have to provide documentary proof which will have to be recorded and retained.
Have I got it right or have I misunderstood.
This bit I reckon you've misunderstood. I suspect that the supply of materials, especially by general retailers but probably also for builders' merchants, will continue to operate in the normal way.
While we're on the topic of being completely off-topic, the percentage of women working in sewers or as refuse collectors is roughly zero. Does this concern you at all? Or is equality only important in the nice jobs?
It's worse than that to be fair.
She wants fair pay and promotional opportunities - and if it ended there then I'd have no issue. But she also wants a twelve month sabbatical for each baby and to work part time if/when she does come back (whilst still getting promoted, obviously). Oh and flexible working outside core hours (which normally results in lower productivity as customers and suppliers are probably shut and the staff she's supposed to be in charge of all work 9-5) Finally, she want us to force her husband to run the hoover round once in a while.
I think that's it. Oh an if we object then it must be US that are deluded.
"These are decisions that couples are reaching freely, together"!! Give me a break. How many men give any serious consideration to rearing their children? How many men do you know who stayed home to bring up their children? I know of one! When we had our child and I had the fateful conversation with my husband about him doing his fair share the answer came back, "What's it got to do with me?" That's it in a nut shell. Men inexplicably think that because a woman carries a child for 9 months on her own with no input from him that forever after women are solely responsible for everything domestic. Women want equality but men are determined to hold onto their unfair advantages. Men are never going to change unless women force them to.
I have no issue with equality. I have issues with discrimination. Furthermore, we live in a Capitalist world where employers seek to reward hard work, dedication, experience and skills rather than pool staff by arbitrary indicators (be that race, sex, gender, hair colour, star sign or anything else that has no bearing on their value to the employer) and make sure they promote/reward equal numbers from each group.
You seem to think that because your husband didn't want to pitch in that none do. Whether or not that is the case, the answer is perhaps to have that conversation BEFORE marrying someone and having children with them, rather than expecting a leg up in life to make up for 'missed opportunities' that were nothing to do with the people you now seek to gain an unfair advantage over.
Nope - you still don't get it. If you really believe that women have a completely free choice then so do men. But most men choose not to take the sharing role.
As Andy says - that is a matter for the women and their partners, not for the employer, and certainly not evidence of stunted career progression or justification for an unfair advantage in the workplace.
You seem very angry at your husband, judging by the posts you've made on here.
Women do want to go back to work, but on the same terms as the men - i.e. why should a women put in 40-50 hours of paid work and still have to pick up another 40 hours of domestic work while the other half only has to do the paid work.
What percentage of women want to go back to work?
Of the last four ladies to go off on maternity in my office, one had no intention of ever working again and three came back part time.
Of the three that came back part time, two have no interest in career progression and would happily take a home-maker role if their husbands' income was sufficient.
The three above ladies, it seems by your logic, are all poor defenceless beings who have been discriminated against by us and by their partners and who deserve a leg up so that they can earn a decent wedge too. Except they aren't - they're all very happy doing the school run, the shopping, and anything else they are able to do without the burden of a full time job.
The remaining lady is the one most interested in career progression but still chose not to tell us when she was coming back until the last moment (her right of course but made it much harder for us to plan etc) and still wanted to limit her hours because she wanted to make sure she spent plenty of time with the baby. Again, fine - but it would hamper her progression if we had a male or female equivalent, just as good as her, who was hungry for hours so as to gain experience, prove themselves, and make themselves indispensable to us.
I've got to say, I'm thoroughly bored with this gender pay gap nonsense - but this article has raised one mildly interesting point/observation in my mind. Whether it counts as sexism I'm not convinced, but it does indicate different treatment for two people based partly on their gender:
A few months ago we had a very sexist article from someone who basically blamed men for stunting her career growth opportunities and claimed that her success was in spite of (and spurned on by) the fact that women are oh so badly treated and discriminated against. This article was written by a woman.
A few weeks ago we had another ridiculous article about how 'something must be done' and suggesting that employers were 'missing out' by not employing more women in senior roles and even suggesting that to 'maximise profitability' they should either pay women more, promote more women, or generally introduce a gender bias. It didn't substantiate WHY women would do such a better job then men and it completely missed the irony of it's hypocritical stance, but again it was written by a woman.
Now we have this. Some irrelevant stats, and more of the same twaddle about how this 'proves' that women are 'hard done by'. Only difference is this one was penned by a geezer.
So, whilst the whole thing is ridiculous no matter who writes it, I can somewhat understand the self-interest angle from the female authors. When the chaps start joining in, it feels worse somehow. It's similar to the cringe-worthy feeling you get when some attention seeking male announces that they are a 'feminist'.
There are many reasons why you might not want the bank to have raw data - and one large factor is that they just don't understand what you give them at them moment! God knows what conclusions they could jump to with too much information. Examples I've had of the idiocies of banks include:
- Client cant afford a loan as he only earns £8k (salary was, of course, topped up by dividends)
- Profits have tumbled, overdraft reviews switched to six monthly (client made one off pension contributions of c£100k)
- Client must be in trouble as overdraft has been increasing steadily for several months with hardly any monies paid in (client was a farmer awaiting sale proceeds from his annual harvest)
- Accounts are wrong. They only show £300k turnover and no Investment properties but client's website shows that he has almost a hundred properties to let (client was a letting agency. Even after explaining this the bank insisted I should change the accounts to show gross rents as TO and payments to landlords as COS)
I thought as much. I've had a couple use it but not many so will make sure I warn any clients who might be considering taking NatWest up on this offer.
Absolutely agree with ireallyshouldnt.......
FreeAgent is actually not a bad bit of software. Ive moved someone from it to Xero and they are now paying twice as much for software that doesn't work quite as well for them in many ways - plus Xero charge extra for the projects module! I've had to discount the service to compensate for this as the client has changed on my request. The positive side is that we can get data from Xero better so the accounts prep should be easier.
I'm not sure if the free supply from Natwest gave RBS any access to the client data - may have been in the terms and conditions but if the new arrangement allows freeagent to share customer data with 'group companies' then maybe we should be giving clients some serious health warnings about using freeagent if they are a Natwest/RBS customer.