"Troy Steadman" wrote
You are suggesting that it's OK for the OP to commit the fraud because he would only be diddling HMRC out of a "few thousand pounds". Well, if it's OK for him to do that, then it must be OK for
*every* taxpayer to do that. Suddenly HMRC is being diddled out of BILLIONS of pounds...Is that STILL "de minimus"?
Well said Tim. However I would go further. It's not only HMRC who is being diddled; it is all of us. The Chancellor has to get the money from somewhere. If someone pays less than his fair share the rest of us have to pay more to make up for it. That's what makes it so repugnant that there are people out there advocating tax fraud as if it didn't matter. As if it was somehow fair game and not serious because "it's only the taxman".
I don't think anyone has suggested the OP do anything other than get proper professional advice. That tends to pay for itself, because most professionals do not see themselves as employed by HMRC, they see themselves as employed by their clients.
I agree entirely Troy. Proper advice is what's needed. However some posters here did go beyond that recommendation and were suggesting that doing something fraudulent was the answer!
You can program computers to any number of decimal places.
For example you could have interest accumulated on a daily basis and it's only once every year that the account is credited or dabited on a statement.
"Peter Saxton" wrote
Of course...
"Peter Saxton" wrote
Agreed...
"Peter Saxton" wrote
... and it is not until this event that a "transaction" occurs.
Now, is this transaction ever going to be for an amount between 0p and 1p?
Gosh, I dont know, it was what Richard Prior got up to in the original Superman film.
Thats the whole point behind the current whatwords within the department. The right amount from the right entity at the right time.
Thats also the point of all the current adverts on TV, Radio and the national press. Apparently, it worked to some degree in Australia and that why they are trying it here.
Which is in part the reasoning behind the requirements in Proceeds of Crime legislation that requires professionals to report any "Suspicion" that they may hold that the client "May" have involved themselves in criminal activities.
"Simon" wrote
Do you think that everything in the Superman film was *realistic*?!
Oh absolutely.
"diddled"? If the OP had got his act together before Apr 6th there wouldn't be a question of lost revenue; in other words, his delay has possibly contributed additional revenues that otherwise wouldn't have accrued to HMRC, so to say thet HMRC have been "diddled" out of revenues that they weren't expecting in the first place is a bit harsh.
Bit like saying that rate tarts have diddled the banks out of their fair share of profits......
"shano" wrote
Yes!
"shano" wrote
Ah, but he *didn't* !
"shano" wrote
And whose fault is that?
"shano" wrote
Hmmm. So do you think that, if he had "got his act together" and made (say) 250,000 instead of only 90K that year, then it would be OK for him just to pay tax on the 90K - because the extra tax on the other 160K was "revenues that [HMRC] weren't expecting in the first place"?
"shano" wrote
It's not at all like that. "Rate tarts" follow all the rules that the banks want them to -- they *have* to, otherwise they wouldn't enjoy the better rate.
But whether the OP makes £250k instead of £90k is something completely different altogether. His company's taxable income is not in question, it's whether or not he can utilise his personal allowances. Okay, technically and legally he can't backdate something that he hasn't decided until after year end, but the fact remains that but for a simple piece of paperwork there wouldn't be any lost revenues.
It happens all the time in large companies, where provisions, etc often aren't decided until after year end.
These people don't live in the real world. They can't solve problems or make corrections. If you stick a stamp on upside-down, or use a blue pen when it said you must use a black pen, that's "fraud".
Mercifully I don't think Tim is an accountant; minor housing official or museum curator or supply teacher etc. But SandalsMan? He strikes me as a young, keen accountant. You have to ask what possible benefit such an accountant could be to any client. What benefit would he ever bring which would justify his fee?
"shano" wrote
Glad you finally agree!!
"Troy Steadman" wrote
Anyone could "solve" a problem by breaking the law. The real acid test is whether you can solve the problem *within* the law...
"Troy Steadman" wrote
You think that's fraud?! You seem to have *very* strange ideas on what constitutes fraud!
"Troy Steadman" wrote
Maybe the benefit of not being chased by HMRC, and not being taken away by the police? ;-)
No benefit at all then. Like a driving instructor who notices you're doing 35 in a 30mph zone, and instead of warning you and putting you straight, stops the car and calls the police.
Holding a properly convened meeting, albeit with yourself in the bath, where you properly vote yourself a dividend in acordance with the M&A, isn't breaking the law.
Well I'm not sure I actually do!
According to
"Troy Steadman" wrote
No-one has ever said that it is. But, unfortunately, the OP didn't actually DO that!!
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required