Firstly, every practitioner must have an alternate, namely another practitioner available to take over the running of the practice in the event of death or illness.
This is a great idea in theory but at a recent meeting most practioners admitted that although they were appointed as alternates they would have little spare time to step in if required. This along with "how am I going to get paid" were also other topics that were covered.
Generally most institutes charge more to firms with more that one partner/ director, I am sure to keep members from leaving. I pose the question though is this a fair way to act, particularly as practioners are getting older and for other points mentioned by Chris Cooper
Perhaps God decided that if he changed it all the Church would not bother to beef up security.
Taking a hit this size will mean that all religious organisations are on notice that their bank accounts can be effected by poor credit control.
One problem I percive is that many accountants like us weed out the dodgy pertential clients at the inital meeting stage and these are not SARs because I have not thing more than that. My gut feeling means that I dont take them on.
Whilst I have no problem with the data in this article I do wonder if we are becomming the whipping boys because we take this approach.
Despite what it says on the website if you send HMRC a cheque for VAt or any other tax it is never returned, but cashed
I dont see whya windows behid the driver should make it a car. Depending on how you sit in the seat you need a window behind for reversing and also to check no one is overtaking.
The seats can be used for private and business. Often such a van is used to collect empoyees/subbies to take them to a site away from public transport or where there is restricted parking. Then again it could be used for the family.
The point to make the change is that of private use. Any private use and it is a car benefit. How this is enforced I have no idea. Except large penalty for lying.
I have for sometime said that the "free HMRC software" should be discontinued. I see no benefit to the majority of taxpayers in funding it. For those who have to complete a tax return and have income less than the personal allowance plus £500, HMRC could give a tax credit of the average cost of software I guess around £35.
As I understand it the current portal will be suspended for those clients who have a turnover in excess of £85k from the next quater ens. It was also suggested that this will be calculated at 4 x last submission figures.
I am at a loss as to why have HMRC made it so difficult to move over. Surely the best option would have been to automatically switch over current clients and then impose the "new requirements" after that date.
So why not a pets tax, albeit I guess that pet food is subject to VAT. Everything else we enjoy is taxed so why not ownership of an animal.
I suspect that some dont report because of the ambigious definition of what should and should not be reported.
Making a report takes time and is not as easy as it should be.
Most accountants are aware of money laundering activities and if they see a potential client that might just be in this area of m/l refuses to take them on as clients.
Often we re-educate a client so that it no longer a money laundering. For instance putting private expenditure thru a company sundries account. Advising them that all income must be declared otherwise we will report them etc.
Just done our Institutes MLR question and was asked how many SARS submitted this year. This kind of answers all questions. If in doubt submit a SAR, if you dont you will be looked at more closely even if you should not need to.
Dont fancy being the ICAEW inspector who has to look at David Winch's MLR records. I have a feeling if it were me I would hardly give it a look.