As VB has said, none of this makes sense. You are inferring that due to an incorrect refund you owed them £95.60 which amount should have been coded out by HMRC. I would speculate that you were at some point under self-assessment but have never been taken out and hence the penalties the quantum of which would be vastly understated anyway. We don't know how HMRC suddenly found your correct address but presumably via your P60s which you've been receiving since 2014. As VB has also said do not under any circumstance submit any more returns.
No problem providing they're ordinary shares. Have a read of Jones v Garnett (Arctic Systems) which took years to reach the House of Lords if I recall correctly.
Sounds like you're well rid of that particular client. Please don't be tempted to respond in any way to the threat. If he wants to start a defamation action it will cost him a fortune and unless there are other statements you've made and not included in your post will stand little chance of success.
The question could have been framed more clearly but I think the gist of it is as follows. The company accounts include a provision for CT which has been reflected in the group accounts.
Subsequent events have shown that there will be an over accrual or under accrual of said CT.
This is not an unusual situation and in my view the difference should be adjusted in the next year. Presumably the accounts were consolidated after signing off by the directors?
Did one of these a couple of years ago and as I recall I had to do dummy P45s from the weekly payroll and set the employees up again under monthly pay. I seem to recall that Moneysoft at the time gave that advice.
Phew! I thought you'd caught me out because the dates correlate exactly with one of my client companies. However they're not a care provider so I'm in the clear.
Not a lot of sympathy I'm afraid. He seems to want the protection afforded by limited liability but not the transparency as regards accounts and just as important consumer protection.
My answers
Yawn.
As VB has said, none of this makes sense. You are inferring that due to an incorrect refund you owed them £95.60 which amount should have been coded out by HMRC. I would speculate that you were at some point under self-assessment but have never been taken out and hence the penalties the quantum of which would be vastly understated anyway. We don't know how HMRC suddenly found your correct address but presumably via your P60s which you've been receiving since 2014. As VB has also said do not under any circumstance submit any more returns.
No problem providing they're ordinary shares. Have a read of Jones v Garnett (Arctic Systems) which took years to reach the House of Lords if I recall correctly.
Sounds like you're well rid of that particular client. Please don't be tempted to respond in any way to the threat. If he wants to start a defamation action it will cost him a fortune and unless there are other statements you've made and not included in your post will stand little chance of success.
The question could have been framed more clearly but I think the gist of it is as follows. The company accounts include a provision for CT which has been reflected in the group accounts.
Subsequent events have shown that there will be an over accrual or under accrual of said CT.
This is not an unusual situation and in my view the difference should be adjusted in the next year. Presumably the accounts were consolidated after signing off by the directors?
Or have I misunderstood the whole question?
Or Betty's been rumbled!
Did one of these a couple of years ago and as I recall I had to do dummy P45s from the weekly payroll and set the employees up again under monthly pay. I seem to recall that Moneysoft at the time gave that advice.
Phew! I thought you'd caught me out because the dates correlate exactly with one of my client companies. However they're not a care provider so I'm in the clear.
Not a lot of sympathy I'm afraid. He seems to want the protection afforded by limited liability but not the transparency as regards accounts and just as important consumer protection.
Well said - I'll second that.