Member Since: 8th Feb 2015
22nd Sep 2020
They certainly do need a reality check!
I recall (as an Employee) writing to HMRC (Debt Collection) about the company being able to reconcile its account figures with HMRC. HMRC's method of payment allocations leaves much to be desired in terms of both simplicity and logic!
HMRC replied to the Company Director, insisting on having a 64-8 lodged with them, as I was not 'named' as an authorised person for them to deal with.
The Director refused to become involved - in his words (though not in any way taken literally or with malice by me), was that he recruited appropriate staff who had the knowledge, experience, and authority to deal with such routine matters; "he did not have a dog and do the barking himself" and was not going to waste time on matters which he had properly delegated as accepted commercial practice.
He suggested that the Company request an equivalent Authority Form for every member of HMRC staff who was to deal with our case. He was not satisfied that just any member of staff had authority to deal with the matter!
HMRC did not acknowledge that as an employee I am NOT an agent; and whilst trying to hide behind GDPR, AML etc ...............they did eventually forward a copy of their full statement, which enabled early reconciliation and resolution and without of course a 64-8.
22nd Sep 2020
If you have not signed up to anything with anyone, and this firm's intentions are already well known in the locality - why not simply increase your market exposure (and by default potentially improve the knowledge/awareness of those clients who probably know they are at risk of being 'sold off').
It is a free market - many clients are not even aware of the existence of other firms. Why pay anyone for 'new clients', who are legally free to approach you anyway?
8th Sep 2020
Agree - dismissal : can't do the work or won't do the work - either way he/she is a liability to be well rid of.
I suppose he/she didn't thank you for furloughing him/her at the outset?
3rd Sep 2020
Stand your ground!
Tell him/her to stick to 'directing' and not trying to micro-manage; especially relating to matters where he/she clearly is less qualified or experienced.
You should stress your independence, and confirm that you will do the necessary work in a manner that YOU consider appropriate, professional, compliant, and in the most cost-effective and efficient way.
If you lose the client, so be it, move on - there are too many such clients who always think they know better.
13th Aug 2020
Not in my book!
The 'flexible furlough' left the arrangements to the employer and employee - thereby enabling flexibility. Business recovery is very uncertain, and in places like Pubs where zero hours may be very relevant - hours may go up and back down depending upon whether there might be further local lockdowns etc.
5th Jun 2020
What is wrong with these people? They do not understand accounts, tax, or indeed filing requirements (HMRC or CRO). They exist only to earn their fee for introducing business to lenders who often also do not know the rules.
Your point about SME's Michael, (typically those who file Micro Accounts) - are 'spot on! They are under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to engage any Accountant -either external or employed. They can produce their own Accounts, do the filing (CRO and HMRC), and the Accounts will not include any Accountant's Report/Certificate, let alone an Audit Report.
5th Jun 2020
Not exactly the same problem, but it relates to the furlough calculation for 30 June; given that claims 'straddling two different months' will not be permitted.
Having filed two successful claims for periods (5 weeks to 1st May and then 4 weeks to 29 May); I am now working on anticipated figures for the next claim.
I would have been happy to file for 4 weeks to 26 June (being my own submission cycle); but now expect to add the remaining 4 days of June so as to coincide with the start of the new flexible work (i.e. non furloughed) possibilities commencing 1 July.
My query concerns the calculation of ERS NI contributions and ERS Pension contributions. Given that employees will still be paid weekly and contributions calculations based upon weekly earnings above the ST threshold (nic) and LE (pensions) threshold - then for the purposes of the June, July, August, September and October submissions, should these thresholds be pro-rata to account for the additional days claimed (but not necessarily paid at the end of claim period date?
26th Mar 2020
From my personal perspective it was their own choice to use the minimum salary/wage plus dividends route to achieve optimum net income.
Just like the self-employed who engage in 'creative accounting' to reduce their 'taxable profits' - it has now time to receive the support based upon their HMRC submissions ONLY - and accept that they cannot expect to only enjoy the upside of their own decisions and strategies.
The Sole Director gets his/her dividends as a shareholder/investor - the result of a personal choice - other 'investors' nationwide are not being compensated for their loss or reduction in dividends!
7th Jan 2020
You have it 'spot on'! It is the person/entity that seeks the reference that decides the criteria. The use of 'titles' ascribed in the application is outdated and now largely irrelevant.
Minister of 'religion' is outdated, when there are an increasing number of 'religions' in which many of the 'ministers' are self-appointed.
There are many public workers (in local authorities, government departments including HMRC) who consider themselves to be 'civil servants', yet they do not fall within the historical and strict criteria for such title.
There are FD's, CFO's, and senior accountants in listed PLC's, NGO's, significant size Private businesses, and non-commercial organisations, who are not 'chartered' accountants. Indeed many of these accountants, hold the position (personally and commercially successfully) based solely on their experience and performance, with no personal membership of any professional body.
In this rapidly changing business environment, is also of no particular relevance to the average consumer, who will judge their 'accountant' or 'surveyor' or 'lawyer' or 'teacher' by his/her ability to deliver the relevant services in a professional and timely manner and at an acceptable cost.
The consumer, or in the case of the person/entity seeking the Reference; he/she/they will decide the criteria used to determine the 'fitness for purpose' of the Service provider/Referee. Go ahead and provide the 'reference' signature - after all it is YOU and the relevance of YOUR status, experience, and relationship with the applicant that will be judged.
12th Dec 2019
I don't follow the logic of how the employee (whether the key man or not) receives the 'premiums'.
Surely 'premiums' are what the company pays monthly or other periodic payment for the policy as a tax deductible expense. The receipt of the benefit payment (resulting from the insured event having occurred), should cause that benefit to be paid to the company as the company is the 'policy holder' albeit the 'key-man' is the life assured.
Surely therefore, this benefit payment should be taxable income in the hands of the company. What the company does with it is up to the company.
The receipts are not the employee's, they are the company's; and I presume they have no obligation to pay any of it to the employee subsequently.
The two processes are separate issues are they not?