Need rid of my accountant fast...Any good ones for under 50/pm

[d000hg]

Jeez, get a room.

[TestMangler]

Are you still flogging that dead, rotting horse? 1-man contractor companies are subject to legislation which doesn't affect a typical Ltd. Did I put it simply enough for you to understand? It's not about being complicated, as about the accountant being familiar with the nuances of how laws apply to their clients. A typical accountant probably wouldn't be hot on the rules if your company was selling to Japan either.

Horse tulip.

One man limited co's are not exclusive to the IT industry and were in existance long before you or I.

Any mainstream (or even not so mainstream) accountancy firm with qualified staff are familiar with (and deal with) companies of all sizes and the laws that apply to them.

To suggest that only specialist companies can handle that is as ridiculous as most of the other crap you post.

Selling to Japan is hardly a valid comparison. My accountant wouldn't know much about breeding elephants, but I wouldn't expect them to.

[Wanderer]

Did you specifiy that as a requirement? Because that solution is riskier than what they did propose.

I didn't specify any requirements. I just signed up through the PCG and they were one of the recommended accountants and I presumed that they would offer good advice and a list of options with a risk assessment of the various ones.

So, imagine you were a contractor operating through a LTD company which was your only source of income and your spouse didn't work. What would you do? "Ask your accountant" seems to be the advice offered here most times. I did that and they said take £12k salary and as Daniel re-iterates, they are adamant that a contractor with a non working spouse shouldn't income split.

[Danielsjdaccountancy]

I didn't specify any requirements. I just signed up through the PCG and they were one of the recommended accountants and I presumed that they would offer good advice and a list of options with a risk assessment of the various ones.

So, imagine you were a contractor operating through a LTD company which was your only source of income and your spouse didn't work. What would you do? "Ask your accountant" seems to be the advice offered here most times. I did that and they said take £12k salary and as Daniel re-iterates, they are adamant that a contractor with a non working spouse shouldn't income split.

Can I just say that I have a lot of clients who income shift. Yes I don't advise it, however if they wish to do it then I tell them to do it in such a way that shows consideration to HMRC.

e.g., 100 shares maybe a 75:25 split; that way ensuring the contractor receives the lions share and not the obvious 2 share company wife:husband split.

If you are happy to do it then propose this to your accountant.

[TheFaQQer]

Can I just say that I have a lot of clients who income shift. Yes I don't advise it, however if they wish to do it then I tell them to do it in such a way that shows consideration to HMRC.

e.g., 100 shares maybe a 75:25 split; that way ensuring the contractor receives the lions share and not the obvious 2 share company wife:husband split.

If you are happy to do it then propose this to your accountant.

Why show consideration to HMRC? I thought that Arctic settled this for once and for all??

[malvolio]

Why show consideration to HMRC? I thought that Arctic settled this for once and for all??

Arctic settled the use of S660a for this purpose. there is still a draft bill out there to outlaw the practice; PCG and friends got it shuffled to the pending tray by proving it to be incompetently drafted and totally unworkable, but it hasn't gone away.

There is a different argument about accountant's advice and whether or not they base their risk assessment on the current practice or the one that may pertain in the future and that may be backdated. I can see SJD's point here, but personally I would rather be given all the options on these broad-brush subjects and asked to make an informed choice.

[Ravello]

Hi Ravello,

Can I ask, did you request to meet with your accountant to sit down and discuss your needs? It's from here that I find I can help the client mould the company to their needs.

FRS should have been mentioned to you, however I know our accountants wouldn't propose income shifting due to HMRC not being fans of it. Would you really want an accountant advising you to do something which you they knew rubbed HMRC up the wrong way?

Hi Daniel,

I didn't request a meeting no, partly as I felt adequately informed from my own research, but partly because during the course of 4 years I had 6 different accountants with 4 different assistants so never felt that there was sufficient continuity to bother taking the time out of my diary.. I won't air all my dirty washing here, but if you want the full details let me know and I'll PM you.

Regarding your second point, No, I wouldn't want my accountant advising me to do something that they believe rubs HMRC up the wrong way; however I would expect the option to be explained along with perhaps a cautionary word stating the accountant's view. This allows the client to make an informed decision, rather than the accountant making that decision on their behalf.

Regarding rubbing HMRC up the wrong way, I'm sure that there are any number of items which achieve this affect, probably including working outside of IR35. It's not however a case of what might rub them up the wrong way, but rather what is legally acceptable within their guidelines and legislation and currently the precedent is that S660a does not legislate against income shifting and as such the practice is legal within the current guidelines.

Having said that, and for what it's worth I have a non-working spouse and choose not to income split, but I made that decision based upon my own research, personal circumstance etc. etc.

[Ravello]

Arctic settled the use of S660a for this purpose. there is still a draft bill out there to outlaw the practice; PCG and friends got it shuffled to the pending tray by proving it to be incompetently drafted and totally unworkable, but it hasn't gone away.

There is a different argument about accountant's advice and whether or not they base their risk assessment on the current practice or the one that may pertain in the future and that may be backdated. I can see SJD's point here, but personally I would rather be given all the options on these broad-brush subjects and asked to make an informed choice.

Hugely unlikely Mal for two reasons:

1. New tax legislation can not be backdated (for obvious reasons), the only way this would be at all possible were if HMRC were to "clarify" existing legislation and retrospectively apply the tax - from what I've read S660a could have potentially been "clarified" to this end, but given the arctic case settled that this did not outlaw income shifting I would imagine that it is therefore no longer possible to amend. Else there's not much point in any guidelines since HMRC could effectively say 'well that's not what we meant, this is what we meant' for any guideline going.

2. Too many MPs and friends of MPs take advantage of income shifting for their own gain!

[Andrew at Boox]

Use Flat Rate Vat to cover your fees

Any good accountant will operate the Flat Rate VAT scheme for you (if you qualify). This will increase your limited company income and in turn help to cover your accountant's fees.

[malvolio]

Hugely unlikely Mal for two reasons:

1. New tax legislation can not be backdated (for obvious reasons), the only way this would be at all possible were if HMRC were to "clarify" existing legislation and retrospectively apply the tax - from what I've read S660a could have potentially been "clarified" to this end, but given the arctic case settled that this did not outlaw income shifting I would imagine that it is therefore no longer possible to amend. Else there's not much point in any guidelines since HMRC could effectively say 'well that's not what we meant, this is what we meant' for any guideline going.

2. Too many MPs and friends of MPs take advantage of income shifting for their own gain!

Hey, I agree with you. Which still begs the question why accountants view the practice as risky...