|
Posted on Monday, November 07, 2011 10:19 AM
|
|
Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:24 AM
With all the furore in the media about tax return errors and HMRC notifying people of over and underpayments, perhaps folks will not be surprised to receive emails like the one below. This is not an HMRC email and clicking the link will not submit a refund request. THis is a spam email and should be immediately deleted. HMRC do not communicate with private individuals by email. You will always receive a letter from them if there is a query with your tax. Furthermore, if they were to communicate in this manner, they would not address you as Applicant. If you read the email carefully you will find that it doesn't actually make sense. Now I know we knock HMRC but they are pretty good at putting a sentence together in my experience. These spammers will not win! Begin forwarded message: From: "HMRC"<hmrc@return.co.uk> Date: 25 October 2011 17:48:25 GMT+01:00 Subject: We have reviewed your tax return
Dear Applicant:
we have reviewed your tax return and our calculations of your last years accounts a tax refund of 178.25 is due.Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 3-6 days in order to process it.
A refund can be delayed for a variety of reasons. For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline.
Submit the form attached to your email in order to verify your card.
Best Regards, HM Revenue & Customs
-------------------------------------------------------------- © Copyright 2009, HM Revenue & Customs UK All rights reserved. TAX REFUND ID: A29R119
Submit the tax refund request HMRC@Service.co.uk HMRC
|
|
|
Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2011 5:04 PM
Energy bills are now so complex that even an accountant could not calculate how much they should pay, according to the latest research from Which? The consumer champion asked 36 people, including a solicitor, an engineer and an accountant, to work out their domestic energy bill using nothing but information from the supplier's website. Just one - a company director - could do it.
|
|
|
Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2011 5:01 PM
The Pin-Stripe Mafia: How Accountancy Firms Destroy Societies by Austin Mitchell MP and Prem Sikka Association for Accountancy & Business Affairs £8.95
As you'd expect from the University of Essex's Professor Sikka and old-school Labourite Mitchell, this hard-hitting critique of the Big 4 pulls no punches The accusations come thick and fast; the major accountancy firms are accused of being anti-democratic, undermining elected governments and emasculating them with their mass exported tax avoidance schemes that deprive these elected representatives of billions of dollars in revenue. These accusations are supported with a welter of stats: from 1998 to 2005 66% of US corporations paid no federal corporate taxes; in the UK Tory CHancellor George Osborne admitted to Parliament that "some of the richest people in this country have been able to pay less tax than the people who clean for them". The UK Treasury estimates that it loses £40 billion of tax revenues each year (others say it's much more); think what that revenue would do for Britain today. Thanks to PQ Magazine
|
|
|
Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2011 4:46 PM
Official error: A major UK accountancy firm recently got its hands on some interesting statistics from the tax man. During the 18 months to October 2010 the VAT Internal Review team considered nearly 29,000 appeals against penalties they ahd issued for incorrect returns and late payments. In around 50% of these cases the charges were cancelled because they had been wrongly imposed.
Wrongly charged: The statistics are worrying, especially when you consider that the penalties were overturned by the taxmans own review team, which is likely to be biased in his favour. In most cases the penalties were cancelled because the mistakes made by businesses in their VAT returns weren't as a result of carelessness but rather a genuine error. In this situation the rules say that the taxman shouldn't charge a penalty.
Tip: Don't take a VAT penalty lying down. Where there's a penalty for an error on your client's VAT return, but it was due to a simple mistake and not because you had acted carelessly, ask for an internal review of the case.
The next step: see http://tax.indicator.co.uk (TX D 11.22.08)
With thanks to Indicator Ltd
|
|
|
Posted on Friday, September 30, 2011 9:12 AM
Now the standard rate of VAT is 20%, some of your business clients may be tempted to split their businesses into different entities, so the part with non-business customers or both parts falls under the compulsory VAT registration threshold when split. This enables them not to register to have to charge VAT to those customers. The Taxman is alive to this tax planning and where he believes they have been artificially separated to avoid VAT, he will direct that the businesses should be re-aggregated.
A frequent target of the Taxman on business-splitting grounds are VAT-registered farms, where a member of the family runs a bed & breakfast business which is not VAT registered, from the same location. He will argue that because some buildings have both a farm use and a B&B function, the two businesses are part of a whole and should come under one VAT registration.
Although the use of the same building can be a factor that indicates two businesses are connected, the Taxman is required to consider a range of factors to determine whether the businesses are genuine separate entities. He must judge whether each factor points towards one business, two separate businesses, or is neutral. If the majority of the factors are either neutral or point towards separate businesses, the Taxman should not direct that the businesses be combined for VAT purposes. If you are not happy with the Taxman's decision you can appeal to the Tax Tribunal.
Where your client operates two or more businesses within their family, the following questions can help you decide whether the Taxman will challenge their businesses as being artificially split:
1. Is the business designed to operate as an individual business, despite utilising central resources, for example a franchised business? 2. Is the business so intrinsically linked with other 'connected' businesses that it can only be considered to be one indivisible business, for example wet sales and catering in public houses and restaurants? 3. Is the business carried on in separate departments or divisions, but is in reality one legal entity, for example a quasi partnership? 4. How much independence does the business have from any other 'connected' businesses by way of legal and technical resources? 5. Does the business owner have autonomy in the way he/she operates the business, for example access to premises, opening times, recording sales, purchase of stock and materials, bank accounts and annual accounts? 6. What would happen if the business owner was unable to operate their business personally? 7. Has the business owner registered the business with HMRC for corporation tax or income tax separately from those businesses that are 'connected'? 8. Is the business owner working together with their partner/spouse in his/her business as a quasi co-owner or just assisting them as a family member in their business?
The Taxman has the power to direct that two or more businesses should be treated as one business for VAT purposes, even where those businesses are contained within separate legal entities, such as limited companies. With thanks to BKN
|
|
|
Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2011 11:11 AM
|
|
Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2011 11:03 AM
"Let me test your internal controls""I'm afraid your assets are impaired""Would you like me to realise your holding gain?""My journals are unsupported""Your projection is too large for my inbox.""Have you tried a reversing entry?""You might have to do it manually""It's time I demonstrated double entry""That projection needs more inflation""The inflation assumptions for your projection are unrealistic""Relax - I'm an internal auditor""Is this an asset or a liability?""Show me your operating segments""Nice journals!""Your ledgers are second to none""I cannot see your projection in my inbox""Please treat this as a prepayment""That was an unauthorised entry!""My inbox cannot take any more!""Your assets need revaluing""Your penetration rates are unrealistic""Oops. I'm afraid I've inadvertently liquidated your assets""Leave my inbox alone!""For this to work you'll need to up your internal rate of return""That is a very ambitious stretch target""This afternoon I will be demonstrating an end-to-end process""That entry is not allowed with related parties!""Your assets are dilapidated"."Sorry madam. I very nearly mis-posted that entry"."My stimulus package is front-end loaded".I love being compliant!"
|
|
|
Posted on Friday, August 19, 2011 9:13 AM
The Taxman is writing to 12,000 self-employed people who claim Tax Credits, to check whether they have been understating their income. Your self-employed clients can claim Child and Working Tax Credits just like an employee, but their self-employed income is likely to be more variable than a regular wage or salary. If the income from their self-employed business has fluctuated wildly during the past recession, your client may well get one of those letters from the Taxman. Your client will be asked to supply evidence of their income, which will normally be their business accounts and possibly bank statements. You will probably need to help your client compile the information requested. The Taxman is also getting serious about tackling those who deliberately cheat the tax system, as opposed to those who make careless mistakes. He is targeting individuals and businesses identified as deliberate tax cheats since April 2009, and will regularly monitor all aspects of that person's tax affairs. This will involve asking for further information to support figures on tax returns, and possibly making unannounced visits to business premises. The monitoring will continue for two to five years, or as long as the Taxman thinks the person is a tax risk. Initially, about 900 people will soon be informed they are included in this monitoring scheme but this number may well increase in time. With thanks to BKN
|
|
Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2011 6:01 PM
|