I don't see how zero hours could be mutality of obligations.
If I have no obligation to provide work to my employees, and they have no obligations to carry it out when I do have work for them to do it, how could they have employee status?
The receipt of value from the mother was in the context of a familial relationship rather than a trading receipt in connection with a property business. She was gifting her son some electricity. It does not belong on the P&L.
The expenditure, however, was a cost connected with the operation of the property business. It does belong on the P&L.
The double entry would be Cr capital introduced, Dr Cost of Utilities.
If the OP works outside the regulated sector as a company accountant, in, say, a widget factory, that option would not be open to him.
In addition, reporting suspicions is entirely independent of, and does not permit, actions which are not permitted under a professional body's code of ethics.
I do agree with you that the OP face a stark decision as to whether he is going to stay and be involved with activity he considers wrong, possibly unlawful, and certainly unethical - or to go and seek his fortunes elsewhere at his own financial risk.
It is most unfortunate that people like the OP are often penalised. He is being forced to choose between risking not being able to put bread on his family table; or risking his own personal professional standing for the greed of his boss.
You might be overstating things when you state Autoclenz is irrelevant.
It remains the case that in cases of considerable disparity in bargaining power, contractual provisions which misstate the commercial reality are ignored, and there is limited value in crafting a compliant contract. However, Atholl House was held not to be of a case low paid casual worker signing on the dotted line.
What is new is the emphasis of MoO (mutuality of obligations) as a necessary but not sufficient condition for any employment to exist.
The implication that most casual / 'zero hours' workers are not in fact employees is revolutionary.
P60 + child benefits + a smidgeon of dividends typically.
I'm not sure what tax advice you can give to someone with a P60 north of the pension allowance fully tapered threshold for the past 4 years. Work from home allowance?
There never was the slightest reason to believe that annual subscriptions included purchasing an accrued entitlement after retirement, other than general accrued entitlement.
I would accept verbal authority to file from the blind taxpayer after reading to them the relevant sections of the return.
For the taxpayer without capacity, the strict ethical position is that you cannot file until a PoA is in place, and if you do so you risk making your client's problem into your own problem.
My answers
OneDrive is the closest like for like replacement, but IMO G-suite is better.
Some grey area risks to be drawn to client's attention:
1) HMRC could say transactions were linked by initial implicit contract at the outset and the entire property is disposed of at the outset.
2) If there is a mortgage against the property this would likely be a breach of covenant or otherwise require consent of lender.
I don't see how zero hours could be mutality of obligations.
If I have no obligation to provide work to my employees, and they have no obligations to carry it out when I do have work for them to do it, how could they have employee status?
The receipt of value from the mother was in the context of a familial relationship rather than a trading receipt in connection with a property business. She was gifting her son some electricity. It does not belong on the P&L.
The expenditure, however, was a cost connected with the operation of the property business. It does belong on the P&L.
The double entry would be Cr capital introduced, Dr Cost of Utilities.
If the OP works outside the regulated sector as a company accountant, in, say, a widget factory, that option would not be open to him.
In addition, reporting suspicions is entirely independent of, and does not permit, actions which are not permitted under a professional body's code of ethics.
I do agree with you that the OP face a stark decision as to whether he is going to stay and be involved with activity he considers wrong, possibly unlawful, and certainly unethical - or to go and seek his fortunes elsewhere at his own financial risk.
It is most unfortunate that people like the OP are often penalised. He is being forced to choose between risking not being able to put bread on his family table; or risking his own personal professional standing for the greed of his boss.
You might be overstating things when you state Autoclenz is irrelevant.
It remains the case that in cases of considerable disparity in bargaining power, contractual provisions which misstate the commercial reality are ignored, and there is limited value in crafting a compliant contract. However, Atholl House was held not to be of a case low paid casual worker signing on the dotted line.
What is new is the emphasis of MoO (mutuality of obligations) as a necessary but not sufficient condition for any employment to exist.
The implication that most casual / 'zero hours' workers are not in fact employees is revolutionary.
If HMRC argued there was a pre-existing implicit contract which linked the disposals, your client could be in some difficulty.
P60 + child benefits + a smidgeon of dividends typically.
I'm not sure what tax advice you can give to someone with a P60 north of the pension allowance fully tapered threshold for the past 4 years. Work from home allowance?
That's a non sequitur.
There never was the slightest reason to believe that annual subscriptions included purchasing an accrued entitlement after retirement, other than general accrued entitlement.
I would accept verbal authority to file from the blind taxpayer after reading to them the relevant sections of the return.
For the taxpayer without capacity, the strict ethical position is that you cannot file until a PoA is in place, and if you do so you risk making your client's problem into your own problem.