Member Since: 28th Jul 2010
1st Apr 2014
Oh deary me!
“My role will involve positively influencing market perceptions – in terms of our talent, our customers and the marketplace occupied by commercial stakeholders.”
Polishing a [***]?
1st Apr 2014
Sometimes not as easy
Jekyll and Hyde wrote:1) accountants need to be more aware of their limitations in the future and possibly accept that they will have to refer clients upwards from time to time. 2) individuals have to start to take responsibility more and look at who they are engaging and whether that engagement suits their purpose. If you make a wrong decision and engage in the wronwrong type of accountant then you are largely at fault.
While I agree with point two, it is not as easy for someone to gauge an accountancy as it would be to choose a garage to service one's Aston Martin.
14th Mar 2014
We're too soft
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this one. If HMRC think it is working, they have a funny idea of working.
If only we could charge them penalties whenever they get something wrong or fail to do something on time.
I spend far more time on payroll than I ever used to.
That's what is wrong with this country! It simply would not be accepted in others. We should simply create an honest paperwork trail of extra costs, add a penalty factor in the same scale as HMRC use, send an invoice to HMRC ................ and also withhold said amount(s). That would focus their minds.
12th Mar 2014
Now let us think about the consequences if we combine this with proposed retrospection. Draconian doesn't even begin to cover it!
22nd Jan 2013
At odds with his OTS role
0103953 wrote:Congratulations, John. More tax simplification, please.
I would suspect that he will be assimilated and that tax simplification is a thing of the past. We may get lucky if he is actually replaced within the OTS with someone willing to take tax simplification head on.
14th Jan 2013
Trouble is .... if the Government force these suppliers to pay more tax, they will simply charge HMRC more to cover the cost increase. Money just swills about.
27th Dec 2012
More unintended consequences
While I agree that PAYE should be paid when payroll is run, I would think that some companies, rather than risking the wrath of HMRC will either employ less staff to lighten the load or use temp employees who will be much easier to hire and fire. Even companies with a good handle on cash flow will at some time hit a glitch, will get their fingers burnt and the pain will make them take measures to avoid future pain.
11th Dec 2012
I forsee a rash of patents "commercially irrelevant" patents being lodged, leaving HMRC to have to burn taxpayer's money dragging companies into court. Remind me, when is a cake not a cake again?
7th Dec 2012
The “service company” question ...
Needs careful attention.
The guidance from HMRC on their notes (page 21) which accompany the tax return runs as follows:-
In order to determine whether your company is a “service company”, three tests have to be considered:
• an individual performed services (intellectual, manual or a mixture of the two) for a client(s), and
• the services were provided under contract between the client and the service company of which at any time during the tax year, the individual performing the services was a shareholder or partner, and
• the service company’s income was, at any time during the year, derived wholly or mainly (that is, more than half of it) from the services performed by the shareholders or partners personally.
According to HMRC’s guidance, if you can answer yes to all three of these, then your company is a service company and you should enter the amount of your salary and grossed-up dividends from this company on the box on your tax return.
Notice that they've dropped the "personal" and it is now just "service company" and that te make no mention of whether the services are performed on the client's site, which was a main component of the disguised employee under IR35.
4th Dec 2012
Good article here
I've been pointed to this article.