I have been accounting for over 50 years eventually selling my old practice in 2010. By popular demand I found it necessary to re-establish a practice in 2016. I am a qualified FFA/FIPA. Between 2010 and 2016 I worked as a consultant.
Married with 2 children and 2 grandchildren, my other interests are recreational cricket, table tennis, classical music and quizzes.
I have no interest whatsoever in social media which I consider, in the main, to be very anti-social!
I have come across this with my own daughter but decided to do nothing about it and she just made the payment eventually, when demanded. No interest charged.
What I find interesting is that HMRC don't appear to back-up their records. ALL competent people do this, so why don't they?
It's rare for me to be on HMRC's side but I think they missed a trick in their argument. Villar would have had to do some £4m's of work for Spire to recoup their £1m investment. One has to assume that they expected Villar to work for some years to earn this amount of income, even at the rate that insurers are willing to pay for such work.
There is a suggestion that Villar also worked outside the UK, as well as continuing his lecturing and other work. How did he find the time to earn this amount of income purely from operations?
If Villar were to have had reason to stop work very shortly after the agreement took effect how could the payment by Spire be considered to be goodwill, they would have been unlikely to recover their investment since patients would simply have used other consultants not necessarily working with Spire.
I suspect that Villar had other reasons for raising funds up front and this was a good way to do it. Personally I cannot see a good reason to treat this payment other than revenue income.
Anyway, well done to the taxpayer, you appear to have convinced everyone except me.
Oh, how I wish that your clients have read this post. The hilarious typos nearly had me dropping my quill pen!
I find the smugness of your response beyond belief. Even the best software and practice management in the world cannot force clients to respond to increasingly urgent requests in a timely fashion.
So, you can't believe the amount of anger that Mark's article has produced? Well, join the real world and see what it's like for the thousands of small practices that have to service millions of clients each year.
I imagine that you are quite selective in your clientele as Mark Telford probably is as well. That's fine but I have to say thank you to both of you for pricing all the clients that the majority of us deal with out of that market.
Mark's firm has a pricing structure that most of us could only dream of. From £2,100 per annum plus VAT for a one or two person business, apparently not registered for VAT, is a fee which only the ill-informed would pay. 200 clients at that level alone would produce £420,000 per annum, and mostly up front. That is without considering the more expensive packages. Well, good luck to him.
There is certainly one thing I can agree with. Coping with MTD is a car crash waiting to happen.Why do you think that only 4.000 have joined the MTD pilot? Perhaps it is because this is an ill-conceived, poorly advertised and, in my view, wholly unnecessary measure promoted by an under-staffed, out of touch HMRC that is not fit for purpose.
Note that HMRC, as of today 11th February, has not yet released the figures of outstanding tax returns following the deadline of 31st January. Has compliance gone backwards?
Sounds good Mark but how many £300 clients have you got? These micro-businesses need accountants to do their accounts and tax returns and, if we accountants have to nag the hell out of them to get their returns done in time, then that is what I call a service.
A huge proportion of my clientele in over 50 years as an accountant are just trying to make a living and whilst concerned about how much tax they pay, they do not have the time to be "ambitious".
Such clients can only afford low fees and I am proud to say that my service to them includes advice, perhaps not too sophisticated, at minimum cost given in a friendly and supportive manner.
Some may say "why take on such low fee-paying clients?" Because they need accounts done for HMRC just the same as those with larger businesses.
I take great offence as being classed as lazy. I, and my fellow professionals with similar practices, care for our clients and if that means having a mad January then so be it.
This sorry saga will no doubt result in much blame being aimed at the Board, the auditors, the staff who fabricated false accounting entries and those allegedly involved in fraudulent activity.
However my beef is with the banks who provided the overdrafts and were much involved in the collapse of the company. I would like to know what due diligence was instigated by the banks when the company requested overdraft facilities, bearing in mind that this was a company, ostensibly doing really well, with significant cash reserves. Why would they have needed such facilities?
I hope that the Administrators follow this up as part of their remit.
“Our assessment is that if these changes are agreed then the resultant portfolio is deliverable, with appropriate level of risk. Also, that we have the capacity and capability to deliver it, or can obtain those capabilities in an appropriate timescale.”
This is a very important comment by Thompson. What on earth is an appropriate level of risk? Either a system works in accordance with the law or it doesn't. The taxpayer , and by extension their agents, are supposed to get everything 100% right with the onset of MTD, but HMRC thinks that there is a risk that things can go wrong from their own perspective. Forget the whole thing, don't just even delay it for 5-10 years! Get your house in order and fit for purpose before contemplating this horrendous change to record keeping. And show a bit of respect to the taxpaying public (and accountants).
Yet another reason to believe that MTD will be disastrous!
All the reminders in the world won't stop those recalcitrant clients from delivering their records in January, so I am past worrying about it. If the stuff arrives I deal with it. If it's late I deal with it then.
What does concern me is that even if 10.39m returns did go in by the deadline it still means that 900,000 didn't. I hope those people don't qualify for MTD returns!
I agree entirely with P&G. I wrote an article for the magazine produced by my professional body, The Institute of Financial Accountants, expressing my disdain for MTD. This was in the hope that it might provoke a meaningful discussion. Of course, they haven't printed it. They and most of the other professional bodies are so in thrall to government that they fail to properly represent the views of their members. I think that in the main we are just numbers to them and have to conform to whatever policies they have with no opportunity for dissent.
Thank you "Tornado" for once again putting in writing exactly what I think about the whole MTD affair. Having recently listened to the HMRC team leader unable, even unwilling, to respond to a question about the tax gap that I posed at the IFA Autumn Conference, I am more than ever convinced that HMRC's reasoning for the implementation of MTD is totally without foundation. They are following Government diktat without questioning the evidence.