Quesrterly VAT payment - Paid in time - but letter requesting payment

[SimonMac]

Which is why I'm pushing the proof of payment thing.

Sorry OP, but we're contractors and we don't trust anyone, particularly family....

Do we dig out the thread where the guy's wife was doing their books?

[philo]

Spoke with my uncle today and he confirmed that there was an issue but its resolved now. The original electronic submission had an issue so its been resummited.

i've got no problems with family doing this for me - have been doing it for years for my cousins without any problems.

Thanks for the advice guys, and to the poster who mentioned someone being advised to put all their business account money into an offset account its not advice they have given me! but thanks for your suggestions and understand where you are coming from.

[northernladuk]

Erm, it wasnt a suggestion, it was evidence that family accountants can be incompetent as well.

[teapot418]

Set up a Direct Debit for your VAT, and get your accountant to email you the submission confirmations. Then you know you're straight for the future.

[ASB]

Erm, it wasnt a suggestion, it was evidence that family accountants can be incompetent as well.

For the brave of heart:-

1. Open a NEW account
2. Execute a carefully worded deed of trust noting that the monies are held in this account by the director on trust for the company.
3. The money MUST remain in this account.
4. Offset the account against the personal mortgage.

I do not believe this has been tested and failed (though I do imagine a number of people have yielded to pressure).

Case law AGAINST it: Mirror Image Contracting Ltd v HMRC

But the key difference with the above is that the funds never become intermingled with other personal funds.

Does a company have to bank in its own name? No.
Is there BIK involved? Arguably
Will it breach the bank account conditions? Quite possibly
Could this give rise to interesting legal consequences? Definitely

So simply saying "do this, it'll be OK they'll never notice" is [charitable] highly questionable [/charitable]

But the underlying transaction set could conceivably achieve the desired effect if properly implemented.

[eek]

For the brave of heart:-

1. Open a NEW account
2. Execute a carefully worded deed of trust noting that the monies are held in this account by the director on trust for the company.
3. The money MUST remain in this account.
4. Offset the account against the personal mortgage.

I do not believe this has been tested and failed (though I do imagine a number of people have yielded to pressure).

Case law AGAINST it: Mirror Image Contracting Ltd v HMRC

But the key difference with the above is that the funds never become intermingled with other personal funds.

Does a company have to bank in its own name? No.
Is there BIK involved? Arguably
Will it breach the bank account conditions? Quite possibly
Could this give rise to interesting legal consequences? Definitely

So simply saying "do this, it'll be OK they'll never notice" is [charitable] highly questionable [/charitable]

But the underlying transaction set could conceivably achieve the desired effect if properly implemented.

There was an accountant on here years ago that suggested that approach. It was at the time banks were dodgy though so there was a sane rational for it...

If the bank went belly up one of the first tasks would be to consolidate any loans against any funds in any accounts. Hence the £100,000 belonging to the company wouldn't totally disappear when the bank went belly up. While £100,000 would be lost when the bank went bang it would be offset by the remaining mortgage being £100,000.. And you could then refund the money back to the bank by extending the mortgage back to its original amount.

Its still dodgy but there was a valid reason at the time to justify doing it..

[northernladuk]

Do we dig out the thread where the guy's wife was doing their books?

A classic indeed!

[northernladuk]

There was an accountant on here years ago that suggested that approach. It was at the time banks were dodgy though so there was a sane rational for it...

If the bank went belly up one of the first tasks would be to consolidate any loans against any funds in any accounts. Hence the £100,000 belonging to the company wouldn't totally disappear when the bank went belly up. While £100,000 would be lost when the bank went bang it would be offset by the remaining mortgage being £100,000.. And you could then refund the money back to the bank by extending the mortgage back to its original amount.

Its still dodgy but there was a valid reason at the time to justify doing it..

Yeah, this used to be THE PUMA's little project.

[northernladuk]

So simply saying "do this, it'll be OK they'll never notice" is [charitable] highly questionable [/charitable]

Am liking these!! Might have to borrow them sometime.

[JB3000]

Spoke with my uncle today and he confirmed that there was an issue but its resolved now. The original electronic submission had an issue so its been resummited.

From what I can gather here it sounds like your uncle forgot to submit your VAT return