Tax year balls-up

"Troy Steadman" wrote

Of course. In which case, he will have received a payslip and so obviously the payment would be salary.

No payslip would mean that he's not due any salary, so the payment couldn't then be salary!

"Troy Steadman" wrote

I'm saying that (irregardless of the entries in the accounts or till or Balance Sheet), for it to be salary then he must have received a payslip. If he didn't, then it can't be salary/wages.

So .... (again!) .... has a payslip been proerly produced?

"Troy Steadman" wrote

I know I "should". Perhaps even I *would*!

"Troy Steadman" wrote

I think I would have noticed (and many others would have) if I'd done that!

"Troy Steadman" wrote

That would hardly "dispose of the evidence" if a speed camera had snapped me.

Equally, slowing down to 30mph does not wipe the act from history...

Yes yes YES YES *YES*!

The OP was sitting in his bath a couple of weeks ago, and suddenly realised he ought to lend the company just enough money to pay his salary and/or dividend. Now he thinks to himself he hasn't done the paperwork, and to comply with the law he must do so ASAP!

...

"Tim" wrote:

"Troy Steadman" wrote

Well then why on earth were you questioning what the payment was for?

It was obviously salary - you don't get payslips for Director's Loan or Dividend!

"Troy Steadman" wrote

No he didn't - he only **just recently** realised this!

He might like it if everyone believed that he'd made the declarations back then, but it didn't actually happen.

Eg see OP:-

wrote > Basically the situation now is that I want to make a payment... > > ...could be back dated... > > What I would like to do (or to have done already)...

"Troy Steadman" wrote

No, he'd need to think: "Oooops I didn't make the declarations at the proper time, let's *pretend* that I did, and date the paperwork as if I had done. I'll just hope that the fraud is not discovered..."!!

Troy seems to think that the rule is no conviction - no offence!

I did say "unless wages have been prepared and posted to a net wages account rather than Directors Loan" but that was because a posting to directors loan account would mean that the entry shouldnt be to net wages account. If no balance sheet is maintained then you wouldnt have a salaries advance or arears at that stage. I'd be saying that if a payroll wasnt run and if a dividend hadn't been declared the answer would be 2.

No. I think "de minimus" governs all aspects of our lives. There are plenty of people who get into a tiswas because 20p has gone missing somewhere, but I prefer people who have a sense of proportion.

"Troy Steadman" wrote

Translation: "Fraud (or any other offence) is OK as long as it is only a "small" fraud (or other small offence)!!"

Really? Don't all the "small" ones add up to the equivalent of one "big" one? :-(

There you go, a perfect "20p" man!

I drive at 35mph in a 30 zone *twenty* times and you calculate that to be the equivalent of...what?...driving at 130mph in a 30 zone?

I smack a child 10 times for being naughty and that's the equivalent of...what...murdering her?

The more trivial things you have added together, the more trivial they become.

"Troy Steadman" wrote

Ah, but a hundred of those is a nice crisp new 20 note!

"Troy Steadman" wrote

If you drive for a **few seconds** at 35mph in a 30 zone, then that might be less material. But if you *always* drive at 35mph in 30 zones, then the risk of an accident increases with every extra minute...

"Troy Steadman" wrote

But the larger number of trivial things you add together, the much more significant the overall effect becomes.

Troy

My sign will be going up by the end of the month.

You'll see it's still big!

You'd rather have someone steal 20k in one go than 1k twenty times over a short period?

You'd rather have someone steal 1k twenty times over a short period than 20k in one go?

How's the extension? If you are happy with it, perhaps you could post the name of your builders?

Everything is finished. We spent about 80k on refurbishing the house as we bought it, another 80k on the extension and another 20k on the garden and surrounding wall. It must have taken about two years as well. We used Polish builders and my wife project managed. If anyone wants a good job at a reasonable price they can contact me and we'll pass the info on.

So if a computer transaction amounts to less than 1p and saves all these fractions in a seperate account, and when this reaches 20,000, someone simply takes this out of the company, is that fraud or materiality?

"Simon" wrote

How can it do that? Surely either there's a transaction for 0p or one for 1p ...