Reply to: Advertising

[Jay12]

WOW. You guys really go in deep.

To newbies, the accountancy side of things can be complicated. Appreciate your responses and likely to switch accountants based on the advice. And the youtube clips!

[northernladuk]

We are contractors I thought. Nobody mentioned IPSE.

That's how I read it.

[malvolio]

Who is we in this case? MS and TF are IPSE directors - I may disagree with their view point but I can at least see where they are coming from. I don't even think you are a CC member anymore...

We are contractors I thought. Nobody mentioned IPSE.

[eek]

As has been said and largely ignored - DNS are selling a franchise. The core business seems perfectly fine, but the franchisees can do whatever they like however they like. If we don't know precisely who is giving the bad and marginally illegal advice we can't really do a lot.

Who is we in this case? MS and TF are IPSE directors - I may disagree with their view point but I can at least see where they are coming from. I don't even think you are a CC member anymore...

[malvolio]

As has been said and largely ignored - DNS are selling a franchise. The core business seems perfectly fine, but the franchisees can do whatever they like however they like. If we don't know precisely who is giving the bad and marginally illegal advice we can't really do a lot.

[Fred Bloggs]

Blimey, do we have to go through this again? If anyone has evidence of malpractice, then send it to the office. Unsubstantiated whinges from non-customers are not going to cut the mustard.

In this case I have PMed the OP and invited them to email me some evidence - if and when they do I will gladly pass on. Until then we do not know if we're talking about the same firm, or whether OP has got the wrong end of the stick.

At the moment it is just an anonymous post on a forum.

Yes, that's all part of the same issue. You don't clear up the s**t, then the smell tends to linger a long while. (At least for those with memory of more than a nano second).

[mudskipper]

Correct. It seems a standard part of the lobotomisation. Any concerns I aired about the Bookson tie up were dismissed as "hearsay". And any request regarding any financial kick backs are, of course, "confidential".

Blimey, do we have to go through this again? If anyone has evidence of malpractice, then send it to the office. Unsubstantiated whinges from non-customers are not going to cut the mustard.

In this case I have PMed the OP and invited them to email me some evidence - if and when they do I will gladly pass on. Until then we do not know if we're talking about the same firm, or whether OP has got the wrong end of the stick.

At the moment it is just an anonymous post on a forum.

[Fred Bloggs]

Several of their management team are regulated by ICAEW and CIMA. They're also part of FCSA. The firm itself is not regulated by one of the accountancy bodies, purely by the FCSA. So reporting could be to HMRC, FCSA and the regulatory body of the guy who recommended the OP to alleged tax avoidance scheme. Could also take this up with the directors of the main DNS practice and advise them that one of their franchisees is promoting/facilitating which also leaves them exposed to prosecution.

Thanks, that's what I thought. But HMRC are not really bothered, they regard paying the "correct tax" as a purely personal responsibility. And that is largely why the more unethical accountants can get away with this kind of stuff, typically. The "film schemes" have been doing the rounds again recently too, I notice.

[Fred Bloggs]

It’s a standard response - I had the same when brookson became a partner as let’s be honest their history isn’t exactly whiter than white

Correct. It seems a standard part of the lobotomisation. Any concerns I aired about the Bookson tie up were dismissed as "hearsay". And any request regarding any financial kick backs are, of course, "confidential".

[Maslins]

Assuming the story is true (I don't doubt the OP, but one has to treat everything one reads on the internet with a healthy pinch of scepticism) and that the accountant is that one that google throws up, then it does need looking into.

But as far as IPSE being in some way "responsible" - that's like saying that because I am a Microsoft certified developer, Microsoft are somehow responsible if I screw up a client's system.

If the OP wants to PM me with any correspondence that details the scheme on offer, I will be glad to pass on to the office.

This...though I wasn't thinking report to IPSE. Unsure what they could do beyond potentially remove the accountant's affiliation with them.

OP - you've gone quiet in this thread, but if you're prepared to stand by your original comments with your real name, PM me (or email chris at maslins dot co dot uk) and we can take this further.

[Darren at Fox-Bartfield]

DNS

Report to who? Are they a member of UK professional body? HMRC tell you that the responsibility for correct tax payment is the individual's responsibility. The accountants claim IPSE affiliation. Report them to IPSE? What will IPSE do? If you use this advertising scheme as suggested by the IPSE affiliate, will IPSE defend you when Hector calls? I wonder...........

Several of their management team are regulated by ICAEW and CIMA. They're also part of FCSA. The firm itself is not regulated by one of the accountancy bodies, purely by the FCSA. So reporting could be to HMRC, FCSA and the regulatory body of the guy who recommended the OP to alleged tax avoidance scheme. Could also take this up with the directors of the main DNS practice and advise them that one of their franchisees is promoting/facilitating which also leaves them exposed to prosecution.

[eek]

Apart from you, who sad that? I have made a different point entirely, which, true to form you choose to ignore entirely.

It’s a standard response - I had the same when brookson became a partner as let’s be honest their history isn’t exactly whiter than white

[Fred Bloggs]

But as far as IPSE being in some way "responsible"

Apart from you, who sad that? I have made a different point entirely, which, true to form you choose to ignore entirely.

[mudskipper]

Report to who? Are they a member of UK professional body? HMRC tell you that the responsibility for correct tax payment is the individual's responsibility. The accountants claim IPSE affiliation. Report them to IPSE? What will IPSE do? If you use this advertising scheme as suggested by the IPSE affiliate, will IPSE defend you when Hector calls? I wonder...........

If one looks at the accountant's page, they have won numerous awards and are a member of various bodies.

Assuming the story is true (I don't doubt the OP, but one has to treat everything one reads on the internet with a healthy pinch of scepticism) and that the accountant is that one that google throws up, then it does need looking into.

But as far as IPSE being in some way "responsible" - that's like saying that because I am a Microsoft certified developer, Microsoft are somehow responsible if I screw up a client's system.

If the OP wants to PM me with any correspondence that details the scheme on offer, I will be glad to pass on to the office.

[Fred Bloggs]

Many will do it on the basis "my accountant says it's ok, so it must be". When it comes to accounting/tax things, that mantra should be ok...but some accountants (and I use that term loosely) clearly don't give a poop about the law/ethics, bringing a bad name to the whole profession

Hence my view, if you're in no doubt they are recommending what you're suggesting they're recommending, don't just leave, report these cowboys.

Report to who? Are they a member of UK professional body? HMRC tell you that the responsibility for correct tax payment is the individual's responsibility. The accountants claim IPSE affiliation. Report them to IPSE? What will IPSE do? If you use this advertising scheme as suggested by the IPSE affiliate, will IPSE defend you when Hector calls? I wonder...........