Advice regarding family business problem!

sangie595

Smodlet wrote: »

It sounds as if a great deal of tax dodging has gone on. I wish there were a magic ipad one could rub and summon the VAT man or some such to take this person to task. Why should these people get away with this when most pay their taxes?

Oh right, I get it now. Of course, we only have the OPs words for that, and no evidence that anything actually happened that broke the law. After all Amazon haven't either! Trying to evade tax is, regrettably, not the same thing as avoiding paying tax due.

Smodlet

sangie595 wrote: »

Oh right, I get it now. Of course, we only have the OPs words for that, and no evidence that anything actually happened that broke the law. After all Amazon haven't either! Trying to evade tax is, regrettably, not the same thing as avoiding paying tax due.

Yes, but Amazon are not the only ones, are they? Apparently Starbucks are just as guilty, as are Google, Microsoft and every other giant corporation, it seems to say nothing of our former PM with his "family's" off-shore accounts.

HMRC have no chance with such but they darned well should with what sounds like a fairly small, local business. It sounds extremely iffy to me if the OP is now being accused of theft. Had he kept scrupulous records, it might be his brother who needed to worry rather than himself. Then, who goes to work for someone doing a job they know nothing about after being accused of GBH? Karma's a b!tc#.

Chickenlips

Weren't you pretty close to the accountant, what with you working in the accounts?

You really should have kept receipts. At the very least, start looking at bank statements and credit card statements for evidence.

Brynsam

Any post with that number of exclamation marks is invariably close to unreadable.

sangie595

Smodlet wrote: »

Yes, but Amazon are not the only ones, are they? Apparently Starbucks are just as guilty, as are Google, Microsoft and every other giant corporation, it seems to say nothing of our former PM with his "family's" off-shore accounts.

HMRC have no chance with such but they darned well should with what sounds like a fairly small, local business. It sounds extremely iffy to me if the OP is now being accused of theft. Had he kept scrupulous records, it might be his brother who needed to worry rather than himself. Then, who goes to work for someone doing a job they know nothing about after being accused of GBH? Karma's a b!tc#.

Possibly, yes. But we are also talking a lot on word here. Bearing in mind that there is a company accountant, who presumably values their financial qualifications and reputation more than to mess with anything illegal, all we know is that the OPs brother claims that his brother talked about ways of avoiding tax. I've talked about ways of avoiding tax. I bet a lot of people here have! In fact I do "avoid tax" in some senses - all legally, of course!

On the other hand, there is an alternative construction to put on every fact. How about - the OP was trusted by his brother to keep the day to day accounts, and the company accountant had just discovered that the OP was stealing from the company by transferring money into the accounts of himself and his partner. The OP tried to cover for this by claiming that he'd legitimately claimed expenses. The OPs brother didn't want to call the police on his own brother, and the whole family got involved in the ensuring fall out because the company accounts were significantly short and he demanded that the OP pay him back what he had stolen or he would have no alternative other than to take some formal legal action. OP came here hoping someone could come up with some scheme to avoid him having to repay the money he stole.

Same facts. Now which side are we on?

System

What exactly is the benefit of him making you pay for things in cash and then paying you? He has still got the purchase and left an audit trail by paying you.

Moreover, surely he woukd want to oay for things himself as they are tax deductible.

Sorry, I used to be an auditor and your brothers scam doesn't make any sense.

sangie595

Walcott wrote: »

What exactly is the benefit of him making you pay for things in cash and then paying you? He has still got the purchase and left an audit trail by paying you.

Moreover, surely he woukd want to oay for things himself as they are tax deductible.

Sorry, I used to be an auditor and your brothers scam doesn't make any sense.

You have misunderstood. There is no evidence of any scam. The OP alleges the brother talked about avoiding tax.

The brother did not pay the OP. The OP alleges that he bought things for his brother but had no evidence to support that, and the OP reimbursed themselves from company accounts. In other words, the facts suggest an interrogation that the OP stole money from the company, which is what the OP denies and the brother says happened.

JCS1

Walcott wrote: »

What exactly is the benefit of him making you pay for things in cash and then paying you? He has still got the purchase and left an audit trail by paying you.

Moreover, surely he woukd want to oay for things himself as they are tax deductible.

Sorry, I used to be an auditor and your brothers scam doesn't make any sense.

Only thing I can think of is benefit to cashflow?

System

sangie595 wrote: »

You have misunderstood. There is no evidence of any scam. The OP alleges the brother talked about avoiding tax.

The brother did not pay the OP. The OP alleges that he bought things for his brother but had no evidence to support that, and the OP reimbursed themselves from company accounts. In other words, the facts suggest an interrogation that the OP stole money from the company, which is what the OP denies and the brother says happened.

I think you have misunderstood. If you re-read my post you will see that I am questioning the op's story as he alludes to tax however, even if the story was true, there is at best bad accounting. Like I have already said, there is no logic in buying something for cash and reimbursing it. Accounting is based on double entry. So even if the story was true then all the brother would have done is avoided paying VAT at 20% while foregoing his corporation tax deduction at a rate which is not too dissimilar to the VAT rate.

That is the reason why people generally understate revenue as opposed to understating costs. The whole logic is counterintuitive.

bertiewhite

Valli wrote: »

If, as I suspect, you have used your name and birth year to construct your username you might want to consider contacting the forum team to change it.

Except that the original post has been quoted more than once so the first username is still visible