Yes, you can start studying without a trainee position
Answering your last question:
Yes, you can start studying without having a trainee position. (CIMA and ACCA candidates often do this anyway).
For ACA (Chartered Accountancy), the majority of students (90% or more) will be working as they study. However, as I said before, it is a good way to show you are committed.
To qualify as a Chartered Accountant (and I assume the others as well although as a Chartered Accountant I do not know much about the ACCA or CIMA), you need to pass all your exams and have 3 years practice experience with a firm of Chartered Accountants.
You can sit all your exams barring the case study I believe without having a trainee position. Then only in your last year of training i.e. 3rd year you can then sit the case study (unless the ICAEW have changed the rules).
Therefore, start studying now and try to pass the first level. Then after that start looking for a trainee position. Thi s will strengthen your chances a lot.(obviously start looking before, a firm may hire you without this anyway and you will save yourself money).
There are a number of colleges that offer ACA courses. One of the most popular and in my opinion the best one is BPP College.
The courses are not cheap but I would not cut corners and would enrol at BPP.
THanks for answer, it son of family run business nad would invol
Thanks for the answer.
Just to clarify:-
Basically it is son of a family business aged 14 who works after school doing some admin jobs and but mainly washing vans of van hire business.
Therefore, that no p11s are needed as it can be ommitted from P35(salary is about £2,000 - £3,000) per annum.
I therefore, assume such a situation would be ok with HMRC and council.
flat rate scheme is best bet
Well you don't really want to cut back on sales if it leads to an inadequate profit and therefore, would most probably have to register for VAT.
As you pointed out there is the option of the flat rate scheme which simplifies the process and can save you the amount of VAT you have to pay over.
There is a section on HMRC website that calculates the potential VAT payable under the flat rate scheme to see if you would save tax or or not.
Based on what I've heard so far the flat rate scheme is probably the best bet.
I do understand the problem, I know of fish and chips shops who have been stung by increases in VAT by the government in the past. Whilst they should be passing this increase on to their customers, many in the industry do not and instead their profits take a hit.
Anyway if your friend wants some further advice on the flat rate scheme, he can email me at [email protected]
May be able to help
I may be able to help. We are a small firm of Chartered Accountants based in North London and have a contact with a firm of accountants based in Italy who should be able to advice you properly.
The firm is based in Milan and can speak English well.
You can contact me at:
or phone me on 07970177897.
We can briefly chat about the situation and I will then speak to the Italian accountant to see if he is willing to take on this case.
Need more information
I would need more information to properly answer this question.
Do you have a contact email? My email address is [email protected]
Thanks for clarifiaction
Thanks for clarification.
Why do you think HMRC will catch up with him?
I may have misunderstood but why do you think HMRC will eventually catch up with him because he is not receiving a salary from the ltd company.
As far as I am aware, the minimum wage rule does not apply to directors and IR35 is only an issue for service companies.
Dividends are still more tax efficient than salaries even with the corp tax rule change.
Yes you lose out on pensions, but this is not an issue for the HMRC.
I have a couple of clients, who are running their own ltd companies along side a full time job and therefore, are only taking money out in the form of dividends since their personal allowance is already being utilised.
Would this be an issue for the HMRC? I can't see why or how they can attack this.
The links do initially refer to personal bills by a director but appear to give the impression later that if a loan account is in credit there is not an issue regardless of whether it is personal or business expenditure.
However, if it is overdrawn then there is potentially P11D issue.
This would make more sense (and certainly make life easier) since many one man ltd company operations often involve crediting the director's loan acount for business expenditure incurred.
If it does have to go on the P11D, and the stat accounts have not been prepared, it is very difficult to ascertain what business expenses the director has paid out of his own pocket especially if the stat accounts are not prepared and he is not using a bookkeeping package nor keeping record of expenses paid out of his own pocket.
Still up to now, I did think we had to record it on a P11D. However, from these postings I am wondering if I need to bother next year and save myself a headache.
What do others think?
Thanks for the links.
It is much appreciated.
I was wondering about this the other day.
And appologies as this is slightly different to Juliet's scenario.
Assuming a director is receiving a salary, wouldn't expenses claimed through the directors loan account have to be recorded on the P11D as the principal is similar to reimbursing an employee for expenses he has incurred on behalf of the company.
I thought expenses such as taxi receipts, subsistence etc that a director has paid out of his own pocket and then claimed through his loan account would still have to be recorded on his P11D and then claimed back on his tax return.
If not, why is this deemed different from an expense account?