• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Incorrect advice given by accountancy firm

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by WordIsBond View Post
    Shocking. There can't really be anyone like that, can there?
    It's a worrying new trend.

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by teapot418 View Post
      The 'loss' would be the additional cost of an extra dividend this year rather than last year.
      Yes, I can see that as a possibility. But perhaps the OP had already extracted all the retained profit and there wasn't a possible dividend last year as a result (obviously I have no idea if this is the case).

      But, if the advice as received originally was wrong and the OP if in effect forced to increase dividend to specifically cover the costs and that dividend costs more (7.5%) then there is an argument that is the quantifiable loss. It may also be the case that the advice as originally received was correct, or subjective, and it is only subsequent events from the OP like extensions or life events that have caused it to become subsequently invalid. (One might argue that if the advice was "yes it's chargeable" rather than "yes it is currently chargeable but it may fail later if something like xxxx happens" was not comprehensive enough).

      Equally if the op had loads of cash in the bank etc then the counter argument could potentially be "you had the resource to pay it personally, and you had already used all your BR rate dividends so there is no extra cost".

      Comment


        #23
        Originally posted by ASB View Post
        Yes, I can see that as a possibility. But perhaps the OP had already extracted all the retained profit and there wasn't a possible dividend last year as a result (obviously I have no idea if this is the case).

        But, if the advice as received originally was wrong and the OP if in effect forced to increase dividend to specifically cover the costs and that dividend costs more (7.5%) then there is an argument that is the quantifiable loss. It may also be the case that the advice as originally received was correct, or subjective, and it is only subsequent events from the OP like extensions or life events that have caused it to become subsequently invalid. (One might argue that if the advice was "yes it's chargeable" rather than "yes it is currently chargeable but it may fail later if something like xxxx happens" was not comprehensive enough).

        Equally if the op had loads of cash in the bank etc then the counter argument could potentially be "you had the resource to pay it personally, and you had already used all your BR rate dividends so there is no extra cost".
        What is the esteemed panel's view on accountancy firm liability for accountancy advice. There was a thread last week on subsistence: http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...allowance.html

        If my accountancy firm advises that I cannot claim subsistence and I then find that I could have, can I claim damages for the loss of not claiming. Seems unlikely to me but maybe I'm wrong.

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by ASB View Post
          It may also be the case that the advice as originally received was correct, or subjective, and it is only subsequent events from the OP like extensions or life events that have caused it to become subsequently invalid. (One might argue that if the advice was "yes it's chargeable" rather than "yes it is currently chargeable but it may fail later if something like xxxx happens" was not comprehensive enough).
          Just as an aside, the above can be a bit of an impossible task for any accountant to get right. Clients often write short questions (eg "Can I claim my lunch?"), and what they want is a short yes/no answer. Of course we can virtually never do that, as inevitably the answer starts "It depends...". It's one thing listing out a few possible scenarios the client might be in now that would suggest whether it's allowable or not. It's another to also lay out possible things the client might consider doing X months down the line. It's a hard balance, as of course not only does the client want a short, easy to understand answer, but also we don't have all day to run through every hypothetical scenario which might crop up.

          I would say I'm pleased that most posters on this forum do seem to understand this, and don't always jump to the "your accountant's an idiot" response whenever an OP has a moan.

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by Maslins View Post
            Just as an aside, the above can be a bit of an impossible task for any accountant to get right. Clients often write short questions (eg "Can I claim my lunch?"), and what they want is a short yes/no answer. Of course we can virtually never do that, as inevitably the answer starts "It depends...". It's one thing listing out a few possible scenarios the client might be in now that would suggest whether it's allowable or not. It's another to also lay out possible things the client might consider doing X months down the line. It's a hard balance, as of course not only does the client want a short, easy to understand answer, but also we don't have all day to run through every hypothetical scenario which might crop up.

            I would say I'm pleased that most posters on this forum do seem to understand this, and don't always jump to the "your accountant's an idiot" response whenever an OP has a moan.
            Whilst still contracting my last accountant was a local guy so decent repute, went indy with a few clients after seeling out to one of the big 4 some years previously.

            Anyway, I worked by delivering him incomplete records, trial balance etc and all he really had to do was check what I was putting through was OK, sort out capital allowances and that sort of thing. And disallow some of the more excessive items - if I didn't try I wouldn't get.

            After he'd done it we'd have a bit of review for an hour or so. Things that were taking the mick - and why. Things that I didn't have that other clients might etc. It was always time well spent.

            Comment

            Working...
            X