Well said Tornado. HMG's announcement (at the weekend I think) caused a level of panic buying yesterday. The measure is unworkable because (like the French have indicated today) there will always be exceptions. In the area I live there are almost 100% of people over 70 and the one person under that age would have a full time job delivering food to the others over a 4 month period.
Have we been told how many 70 and over year olds have contracted (and recovered from) the virus? Boris has done a pretty good job so far but I'm afraid he should have kept his powder dry on this one.
Yes, agreed Anne! If the post is a spoof (and Friday afternoons tends to be the time for these things) it's a bit of light relief (which the OP reckons he had one night). If it's serious the OP will find that doing nothing (apart from my advice about the blackmail) is sometimes the best option.
The part about 3 years accounts didn't make sense unless the lady was in arrears with her returns.
Don't worry - if this post is genuine (and you'll be able to dine out on this story for years) blackmail is a very serious crime. Just tell her that you have enough evidence to have her banged up for years. Disengage obviously - you have haven't you?
In all my years in practice I never had that much excitement.
No, but this could prove to be one of the unintended consequences of (new) IR35. HMRC won't be able to cope with large numbers of potential enquiries. What with the loss of dividend tax going forward I'm beginning to wonder whether there will be much increased tax revenue. But it doesn't matter because at least HMRC can spend public money pursuing IR35 cases completely uncaring as to whether they have a good case or not.
What an interesting question - a bit like the very old days when the forum was actually a useful CPD tool.
There's still a lot of information missing. Are we agreed that the shareholders are the directors also of all companies (the OP hints that there may be some minor shareholders in the larger companies such that those minor shareholders may be disadvantaged by artificial diminution of profits)?
The "small" company may have a T/O of £9.9M - we don't know.
I think the OP should be studying the last filed accounts of the 2 larger companies. Is there a trend of reducing profits such that they may cease trading at some point.
In the absence of a proper explanation from the directors I'd start with the worst case scenario that they were intending to phoenix the two larger companies at some point.
Not sure about that one Tim - I always keep records for 6 years purely for statute of limitations reasons i.e. if any historical figures/advice are challenged I've got everything on file.
I had a similar case around 30 years ago when a sacked client threatened to sue me for compensation. I told him to go ahead if he could find what losses he'd incurred due to my actions.
I think the OP will find that it's probably the ignominy of being "sacked" that's caused the client's behaviour. I'd write one letter (and make it clear that it is the final letter) explaining what others have said about ownership of the documents.
Silly question but I presume the employer is not a limited company paying CT? If so, you can get an offset. Never tried to offset against self assessment tax for sole traders but if it's the same legal entity, why not?
Yes, did the same thing myself and ticked the box incorrectly. It's a new charge apparently but not sure what for. You need to log in to your MLR account and just pay it. You then wait several months for formal acceptance of your renewal - I've been waiting since 15 August 2019.
My answers
Well said Tornado. HMG's announcement (at the weekend I think) caused a level of panic buying yesterday. The measure is unworkable because (like the French have indicated today) there will always be exceptions. In the area I live there are almost 100% of people over 70 and the one person under that age would have a full time job delivering food to the others over a 4 month period.
Have we been told how many 70 and over year olds have contracted (and recovered from) the virus? Boris has done a pretty good job so far but I'm afraid he should have kept his powder dry on this one.
Move abroad.
Yes, agreed Anne! If the post is a spoof (and Friday afternoons tends to be the time for these things) it's a bit of light relief (which the OP reckons he had one night). If it's serious the OP will find that doing nothing (apart from my advice about the blackmail) is sometimes the best option.
The part about 3 years accounts didn't make sense unless the lady was in arrears with her returns.
Don't worry - if this post is genuine (and you'll be able to dine out on this story for years) blackmail is a very serious crime. Just tell her that you have enough evidence to have her banged up for years. Disengage obviously - you have haven't you?
In all my years in practice I never had that much excitement.
No, but this could prove to be one of the unintended consequences of (new) IR35. HMRC won't be able to cope with large numbers of potential enquiries. What with the loss of dividend tax going forward I'm beginning to wonder whether there will be much increased tax revenue. But it doesn't matter because at least HMRC can spend public money pursuing IR35 cases completely uncaring as to whether they have a good case or not.
It's for the tax year although I do cheat sometimes by using a March year end as 5 April.
What an interesting question - a bit like the very old days when the forum was actually a useful CPD tool.
There's still a lot of information missing. Are we agreed that the shareholders are the directors also of all companies (the OP hints that there may be some minor shareholders in the larger companies such that those minor shareholders may be disadvantaged by artificial diminution of profits)?
The "small" company may have a T/O of £9.9M - we don't know.
I think the OP should be studying the last filed accounts of the 2 larger companies. Is there a trend of reducing profits such that they may cease trading at some point.
In the absence of a proper explanation from the directors I'd start with the worst case scenario that they were intending to phoenix the two larger companies at some point.
Not sure about that one Tim - I always keep records for 6 years purely for statute of limitations reasons i.e. if any historical figures/advice are challenged I've got everything on file.
I had a similar case around 30 years ago when a sacked client threatened to sue me for compensation. I told him to go ahead if he could find what losses he'd incurred due to my actions.
I think the OP will find that it's probably the ignominy of being "sacked" that's caused the client's behaviour. I'd write one letter (and make it clear that it is the final letter) explaining what others have said about ownership of the documents.
Silly question but I presume the employer is not a limited company paying CT? If so, you can get an offset. Never tried to offset against self assessment tax for sole traders but if it's the same legal entity, why not?
Yes, did the same thing myself and ticked the box incorrectly. It's a new charge apparently but not sure what for. You need to log in to your MLR account and just pay it. You then wait several months for formal acceptance of your renewal - I've been waiting since 15 August 2019.