Can't remember - but I know what I wasn't doing and that was waiting for a response for a tax return submission which until recently was pretty instantaneous.
When in doubt I use pi r squared.
Not a unique set of circumstances I'm afraid. There are contractors out there who have no intention of paying over the tax deducted and you can guarantee that there are operating through a limited company. You should prepare a schedule of what tax has been deducted showing the gross invoice value and reconciling with the bank. Make a claim for the CIS tax suffered and white box the fact that no certificates have been issued. One of my clients receives certificates as and when the contractor feels like issuing them and there's always a shortfall at the year end. If HMG hadn't singled out the construction industry in the 1970s for special treatment we'd never have had this problem.
PNL's quite correct - I've been using these criteria for 30 years i.e. ignoring HMRC's guidelines which are not backed up by law. If there's no tax liability why on earth would someone register a person for self-assessment with the attendant accountant's cost and a (very small) risk of an enquiry?
Occasionally there is a thread which is worthy of intelligent discussion - admittedly not in the numbers of 4 or 5 years ago when there were many good contributors.
The problem is that any such post very quickly falls down the list of questions because of a myriad of subsequent pathetic posts from people who shouldn't be practising accountancy or non-accountants wanting a free ride.
Good threads therefore very quickly disappear into the ether of "show more".
A simple solution would be to promote threads to the top of the list every time someone posted a response. I don't know why I bother to contribute because Sift don't give a toss.
Very sad because this site was an excellent source of CPD a few years ago.
Don't really agree with the logic of disallowing some or all of the management charges. The contract will be with either the freeholder direct or their appointed management company. Either way the leaseholder is paying for a revenue item i.e. sorting out repairs and maintenance to the common areas, replacing windows, making the roof leak-proof etc.
They have indeed changed from 1 October 2017 and merely encourages people not to pay their debts. It raises the bar for the claimant and almost makes the Small Claims Court irrelevant. The reference to mediation states that one should take a view on the costs of mediation before mounting a claim - a charter for the unscrupulous non-payer. A sad day for honest people and makes it clear that the Courts don't really want the hassle of enabling common people to seek justice. Historically the time cost of pursuing small debts has often exceeded any monies recovered but at least it has allowed people to make a stand against serial non-payers. Now the claimant will need to be conversant with a whole new raft of protocols before making a claim.
No because hopefully the payments were made under normal market conditions. Neither successive Companies Acts nor successive FRSSEs have specified dividends to directors in their capacity as shareholders as being disclosable items. The fact that the ICAEW disagree is too bad. We've had enough FRSSEs over the years to have nailed this point one way or the other if there was any real concern about this disclosure/non-disclosure.
As I understand it, a share capital note under 102 1A is not required - the fact that the issued share capital has altered is irrelevant. As far as a statement of equity is concerned this is not required but is "recommended" presumably under the true and fair criteria.
Since "true and fair" is an imprecise concept I missed off the statement from a recent set of accounts so that the dividends in particular did not make it into the public domain.
If the standard setters really want to be taken seriously they'll just have to specify what they want or don't want.
It's not your fault that Companies House are totally inflexible. You haven't told us whether the amended accounts had a later approval date appended to the balance sheet or whether the accountant used the original date (effectively backdating the approval). If the former readers of the accounts will likely use the correct (amended) version. Either way and as others have said just move on and double check future filings.