A problem friend..

debtfreein4years

please also note that the inland revenue can go back 20 years if they think they have been seriously defrauded and that can mean heavy penalties for your friend. also means in the future if they do decide to look into his accounts and they find something iffy they can bascially go back for as long as they like and how many people keep records for 20 years?

smartpicture

Also if they find out he lied on this tax return, they can (and do) then 'assume' that he has done the same for previous seven years, for example, even if they can't prove it. He will then have to pay extra for years in which he was actually being honest, plus penalties and fines on top.

Primrose

Your friend will have to produce paperwork and an effective audit trail to prove the expenses he is claiming, i.e. invoices/banks statements. He's on a hiding to nothing. From a previous case I have knowledge of, the Revenue also have the power to investigate the financial affairs of those with whom the individual being invetigated claims to have done business with, to confirm that the transactions were in fact carried out, and that there is paper evidence to that effect. Whilst I'm sorry your friend finds himself in this situation, this is fraud, and as a taxpayer who is being beaten to death already subsidising dodgy banks and numerous other !!!!less individuals, I cannot condone what he is trying to do. Even if he thinks he has got away with it this time, he will always have the possibility of an in-depth investigation hanging over him, and if he gets caught, he will spend the rest of his working life under suspicion from the Revenue.

Moopig1

Would it not be better to file for bankruptcy rather than be sent to the clink!?

Robert_Sterling_3

samdmumford wrote: »

implications I would think would be fraud
Why doesnt he just rang his local tax office ask for advise stating his bills seems higher than normal especially with a slump in sales and see if they can check it for him
If he is caught which i would suspect he would be it would not be good
Not an accountant but i think that tax can be assessed back seven years so he would be looking over his shoulder so the next seven years.

I think that in a case involving fraud you can go back as far as you like.

I have very rarely seen a thread where so many posters are in agreement.

vet8

He can employ his wife, as long as he can justify the salary, she has to be actually doing something for the money. If she is not earning anything else she will not be liable for tax and NI so he would have had no tax to pay. I assume he would have had to register in some way that he was employing her.

Certainly in the firm I work for all the partners pay their wives a salary that brings them just under the NI limit and they say that is for their wives having to answer the phone when they are on call at the weekends.