'companies will have to confirm that they’re forming the company for a lawful purpose when they incorporate. Companies will then have to state on their confirmation statement that its intended future activities will be lawful.'
This is a waste of everyone's time, obviously. Do they think that crooks will be deterred by having to lie?
I cannot recall phoning HMRC at all in the past decade, and it is because I know it will be a waste of time. I always write, and they always ignore, so I always send a reminder, which they always ignore, so I make a complaint, which they usually ignore, so I threaten to escalate it to the adjudicator, which finally gets a result.
My view is that is has never made sense that small companies are required to file accounts when sole traders and partnerships are not. Either all three should file, or none. Also, the current regime is pointless, as there is so little information in filed small and micro accounts as to make them utterly useless. I think the filing requirement for small/micro company accounts should be abolished altogether for these reasons, rather than be extended. With no CH filing requirement, HMRC and shareholders would still get the full accounts, and they would be available to anyone who the company considers appropriate to see them, such as their banks and potential investors.
I have often wondered whether there is any need to pay the ICAEW anything when they make a disciplinary judgment if you no longer care about being a member. Private sector organisations have no power to levy penalties, so apart from threatening to exclude you, how can the ICAEW force payment?
I did auditing in my student days in the Eighties, and the problem for junior staff is that there was nothing like enough time in the budget to do a proper job while also performing the mountain of box ticking and form filling that had been recently introduced. There was just enough time to perform perhaps a quarter of the testing needed, then the rest of the time would be spent writing a load of lies in the audit file of what had been done. If one of your test items had an anomaly, there was no time to investigate it, so you just chose a different item to test that gave the expected result, and wrote that one up instead. You had to gloss over anything that suggested a problem, as otherwise you would go over budget, or get a reputation as one who riled clients, either of which would get you sacked and replaced by someone willing to fake it.
If you really think the problem is Tory governments, then you are part of the problem, as you are ripe for being fooled by governments of other persuasions. All democratic governments play this game, as it is forced on them. If they try to do the right thing and keep tax simple, then they will be outflanked by the opposition parties who will complicate tax to buy votes from specific groups by abusing allowances and exceptions.
When people express their if-I-were-in-charge fantasies, they imagine they are showing the way to paradise, when really they are just making fools of themselves.
I never phone HMRC, I always write. If they ignore the first letter (which happens most times), I send a reminder, then a second reminder with a threat of a complaint, then a complaint, then a reminder to deal with the complaint with a threat to escalate it to the Adjudicator. I have always found that at some point you get a result. I have never quite had to involve the Adjudicator. Do each letter a month or two apart, and you can nearly always get something dealt with within a year.
My answers
'companies will have to confirm that they’re forming the company for a lawful purpose when they incorporate. Companies will then have to state on their confirmation statement that its intended future activities will be lawful.'
This is a waste of everyone's time, obviously. Do they think that crooks will be deterred by having to lie?
I cannot recall phoning HMRC at all in the past decade, and it is because I know it will be a waste of time. I always write, and they always ignore, so I always send a reminder, which they always ignore, so I make a complaint, which they usually ignore, so I threaten to escalate it to the adjudicator, which finally gets a result.
My view is that is has never made sense that small companies are required to file accounts when sole traders and partnerships are not. Either all three should file, or none. Also, the current regime is pointless, as there is so little information in filed small and micro accounts as to make them utterly useless. I think the filing requirement for small/micro company accounts should be abolished altogether for these reasons, rather than be extended. With no CH filing requirement, HMRC and shareholders would still get the full accounts, and they would be available to anyone who the company considers appropriate to see them, such as their banks and potential investors.
I have often wondered whether there is any need to pay the ICAEW anything when they make a disciplinary judgment if you no longer care about being a member. Private sector organisations have no power to levy penalties, so apart from threatening to exclude you, how can the ICAEW force payment?
I did auditing in my student days in the Eighties, and the problem for junior staff is that there was nothing like enough time in the budget to do a proper job while also performing the mountain of box ticking and form filling that had been recently introduced. There was just enough time to perform perhaps a quarter of the testing needed, then the rest of the time would be spent writing a load of lies in the audit file of what had been done. If one of your test items had an anomaly, there was no time to investigate it, so you just chose a different item to test that gave the expected result, and wrote that one up instead. You had to gloss over anything that suggested a problem, as otherwise you would go over budget, or get a reputation as one who riled clients, either of which would get you sacked and replaced by someone willing to fake it.
If you really think the problem is Tory governments, then you are part of the problem, as you are ripe for being fooled by governments of other persuasions. All democratic governments play this game, as it is forced on them. If they try to do the right thing and keep tax simple, then they will be outflanked by the opposition parties who will complicate tax to buy votes from specific groups by abusing allowances and exceptions.
Kafkaesque and ridiculous, but unfortunately not surprising.
You first paragraph is hyperbolic codswallop. The UK rate of corruption is very low indeed by world standards.
When people express their if-I-were-in-charge fantasies, they imagine they are showing the way to paradise, when really they are just making fools of themselves.
I never phone HMRC, I always write. If they ignore the first letter (which happens most times), I send a reminder, then a second reminder with a threat of a complaint, then a complaint, then a reminder to deal with the complaint with a threat to escalate it to the Adjudicator. I have always found that at some point you get a result. I have never quite had to involve the Adjudicator. Do each letter a month or two apart, and you can nearly always get something dealt with within a year.