Member Since: 20th May 2006
18th Mar 2020
It will be interesting to see what happens here then. As many of our contractor clients have already either had their contracts terminated, been made full-time employees, or have accepted significantly lower day rates under the payroll rules, so I would imagine too late for the majority of contractors to do anything about and for the decisions to be reversed. A few of the contractor clients that were terminated are now struggling to find any replacement job as the banks understandably aren't keen on taking people on right now in the current unknown environment. I'm hoping that things unfold favourably.
20th Feb 2020
Always love it when we’re told that guidance will be issued nearer the time, when ‘that time’ is only 6 weeks away.
Luckily I’m fairly chilled about these things but I can’t imagine what it’s like for a worrier.
16th Jan 2020
Well I agree with you, we do have to draw conclusions from the information available, which is precisely what I did, and we do have to assume a certain level of professionalism and accuracy of reporting, which of course can't be guaranteed.
None of us were there, as with virtually all articles in national newspapers, I don't think we should refrain from voicing our opinions based upon the information given to us.
16th Jan 2020
The article quite clearly quotes the council as saying that the culprit was a very new junior member of staff, it then goes on to say that internal controls should have identified it. No mention of any managerial oversight or failure, just internal controls, why single out the junior member of staff when the manager is paid far more to identify such errors. Infact a very new junior member of staff should have had even closer supervision don’t you think?
16th Jan 2020
Would love to know what a repayment plan looks like to recover £12k from someone on £59 per week benefits.
Presumably no criminal theft charges brought about because it would simply highlight the councils, or rather the managers, incompetence. Quite pathetic and cowardly to blame it on the ‘very new junior member of staff’.
2nd Dec 2019
So company commits fraud by submitting entirely dishonest R&D claim, accrues £400k non-existent expenses in accounts and presumably £80k CT benefit, avoids criminal prosecution. And that’s a good result for HMRC is it?
Would be interested to know who submitted the R&D claim, was it solely the company, with the help of their accountant, or a specialist R&D claims company? It’s about time that these ridiculous R&D claims were stamped out.
21st Nov 2019
But I don't see how the EY offering is any different to any service offered by small accountancy firms already. I have many clients that simply email me their information or upload it via Dropbox, and I have next to no contact with them throughout the year, I just haven't given the service a fancy name and big marketing push. The main difference of course is that EY will either outsource the work to another country or will get very junior staff working on it, as opposed to UK-based partners and/or experienced UK-qualified staff. I really don't see how a small client that is attracted by a £329 EY price tag will get any benefit of having EY printed on their accounts.
23rd Oct 2019
Is that definitely correct? The Solicitors Regulation Authority for example hold the member personally liable for its (equally extortionate) costs regardless of whether you’re still a member or not. I suspect there may be small print in our membership terms along the same lines, otherwise yes I’d agree that you that I’d simply walk away from any such order.
4th Oct 2019
Must have been difficult to maintain a stiff upper lip when the verdict was given, or not.
11th Sep 2019
Well done to Companies House for reaching out, as they say, but surely the readership of AccountingWEB are exactly the people that already know all this. I really do hope so anyway. Have CoHo been reading the forum and made a judgement as to the quality of the questions recently ? !!