Member Since: 21st Nov 2008
11th Sep 2020
More public money being thrown at a hopeless cause. There's nothing in the evidence that remotely suggests a capital element. The giveaway is in the last bullet point of HMRC's argument - "in the alternative". This demonstrates that the preceding bullet points were vexatious.
5th Sep 2020
Agreed up to a point DJKL and I too was brought up on the "Watchdog not a Bloodhound" approach in the 1960s. But someone has to protect the shareholders from the directors who in this case were the culprits.
2nd Sep 2020
They'll soon recover the £22M through increased fee rates and carry on until the next botched audit. If they think they're not responsible for spotting fraudulent activity then who is?
In the meantime their regulatory body will hound the sole practitioner who forgets to cross the "T"s and dot the "I"s in a sweet shop audit.
18th Mar 2020
I'm sure Rishi Sunak will be grateful to Richard Murphy for his advice.
20th Feb 2020
Yet another sad case of a sole/small practitioner incurring fines and costs that are likely to be disproportionate to his gross fees for the year compared to the big four fines for outrageous audit breaches. I doubt whether the fines levied on the big four would even put a small dent in the partners' profit shares but £23,000 is likely to be life changing for this chap.
The best business decision I ever made was to jump ship from the ICAEW some 15 years ago for this very reason. Sole practitioners are the low hanging fruit for the ICAEW.
17th Jan 2020
HMRC don't specify to which year the amendments relate. I've certainly filed two amended 17/18 returns recently because when completing the 18/19 returns I noticed minor errors. They didn't affect the liabilities concerned but in one case I failed to complete the "loss carried forward" box on a furnished holiday let. I'm therefore owning up to contributing to HMRC's observations and apologise for the panic.
21st Nov 2019
I'm not sure if it's the marketing and P.R. departments that are in any way to blame. We have historical wrongdoings and the recent money laundering allegations which if proved could be terminal for the firm. I for one certainly don't wish "all at EY well". If the latest allegations (from a whistle blower) are proven they should be shut down in the manner of Arthur Andersen after the Enron scandal.
30th Oct 2019
Or a single parent father with young kids.
13th May 2019
Obviously welcome and typical of HMRC to give this guidance some 5 weeks after the start of MTD for VAT with the usual total disregard of what taxpayers have been told must operate from 1 April. It also makes a mockery of the so called reasons for MTD for VAT. The purpose of the new system was to risk assess a return based upon the ability to know each line item that made up the 9 boxes (unless I've totally misunderstood HMRC's propaganda). Accepting that one can now combine say 50 items in one payment (on the cash basis) this rather shoots down in flames HMRC's reasoning for MTD for VAT in the first place.
28th Apr 2019
Not really - that's the whole point of the article.