IFA wants to increase charge on existing pension

AlanP_2

LHW99 said:

You have pretty much described most small limited companies in all walks of life.

That is an unwarrented generalisation on small businesses IMO. It may be (though I hope not) commonly encountered in financial service situations, but it certainly isn't more general from my experience.

Perhaps not meetings in the US but spouse as a partner, family members providing paid services etc. is fairly typical in my experience for small 1 man bands. Blimey even MPS "employ" their spouses so if its good enough for them then why not as long as genuine work is being done and the cost is within reason for what is being provided.

dunstonh

[Deleted User] said:

dunstonh said:

A few years ago I did some work helping an SJP-like organisation to help them understand the risks that they were running with their financial advisers.  Despite the contract being a personal one between the organisation and the individual FA, it turns out that some were trading as general partnerships with their spouse (two personal allowances, two deductions for phone / laptop / car).  Some were meeting clients in the US (two lots of travel deductions).  Their leads were provided by the SJP-like organisations but it seemed that quite a few thought it a good idea to pay a company (literally) owned by their mum, a large amount (e.g. £60k pa) for "marketing services".

You have pretty much described most small limited companies in all walks of life.

Putting the tax evasion aside, it is rare to see people lying to their "employer" or their regulator. 

You are pretty much talking about micro limited companies here.  So, the employer is them.   And most industries are not regulated (or very light touch if they are).

Sarahspangles

It used to be the case that a company had to have a minimum of two officers, one designated as Company Secretary. I don’t know if this was statutory or a requirement for business bank accounts. I’ve certainly been CS a couple of times - on paper. I think it’s one of those things that persists because people ‘know’ it’s required even though it now isn’t.

I’ve dealt with a couple of MP’s wives who were working their socks off for their salary!

LHW99

dunstonh said:

LHW99 said:

You have pretty much described most small limited companies in all walks of life.

That is an unwarrented generalisation on small businesses IMO. It may be (though I hope not) commonly encountered in financial service situations, but it certainly isn't more general from my experience.

Spouses and family members are extremely common in officer positions or roles "on paper" like cleaner or admin.

I see it frequently when doing AML checks on the company and beneficial owners.  Most common is just the spouse but often enough it includes the children and sometimes their spouses too.

I’ve dealt with a couple of MP’s wives who were working their socks off for their salary!

And in my experience it is not just MP's wives who do. Small / micro companies generally have less "fat" that large ones, and cannot carry anyone who doesn't pull their weight.

Running a small company usually means anyone with a salary is working at least two roles, and job demarkation goes out of the window - if someone is sick, or on holiday whoever is available has to do the job. Customers (particularly industrial ones with a manufacturing issue) don't have time to waste on "please come back next week" or "we're very busy phone back in the morning" - they just walk to someone else.

Sarahspangles

LHW99 said:

I’ve dealt with a couple of MP’s wives who were working their socks off for their salary!

And in my experience it is not just MP's wives who do. Small / micro companies generally have less "fat" that large ones, and cannot carry anyone who doesn't pull their weight.

Running a small company usually means anyone with a salary is working at least two roles, and job demarkation goes out of the window - if someone is sick, or on holiday whoever is available has to do the job. Customers (particularly industrial ones with a manufacturing issue) don't have time to waste on "please come back next week" or "we're very busy phone back in the morning" - they just walk to someone else.

I did my (now) ex’s accounts for a couple of years, but recommended he get an accountant who would know better what he could claim for. Also, I already had a full time job. The accountant my ex found offered me another!

kinger101

Albermarle said:

kinger101 said:

cfw1994 said:

wjr4 said:

IFAs rarely take people out to lunch now, I find the idea of that very outdated. If you don’t understand that you’re paying the annual fee for, question it.

It’s evening meal overnight in the Cotswolds for my pal….SJP still have cash to splash, it appears 🫣

And no corporate governance procedures it seems be we knew that already.

It will come back to haunt them.  

I do not think there is any issue in any business, if they choose to entertain clients .
In fact the tax system is quite benign on the subject. When I used to claim expenses, if I bought a meal for a colleague, I could not claim the VAT back. However is it was a meal related to business i.e. with a customer or supplier, then you can claim the VAT back ( or more correctly your employer can ) .

It is because there is a risk a contract was entered into with the undue influence of the bribe.  Hence, my reference to corporate governance.  I wasn't speaking about the tax system.

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/corporate/fsa-anti-bribery-investment-banks.pdf

You might think this is not a concern, but it's not atypical for regulators to side with the consumer when money is lost.  PPI. Banking Scams.  I'd argue common sense would protect the average consumer for both of these but there you go.

Albermarle

kinger101 said:

Albermarle said:

kinger101 said:

cfw1994 said:

wjr4 said:

IFAs rarely take people out to lunch now, I find the idea of that very outdated. If you don’t understand that you’re paying the annual fee for, question it.

It’s evening meal overnight in the Cotswolds for my pal….SJP still have cash to splash, it appears 🫣

And no corporate governance procedures it seems be we knew that already.

It will come back to haunt them.  

I do not think there is any issue in any business, if they choose to entertain clients .
In fact the tax system is quite benign on the subject. When I used to claim expenses, if I bought a meal for a colleague, I could not claim the VAT back. However is it was a meal related to business i.e. with a customer or supplier, then you can claim the VAT back ( or more correctly your employer can ) .

It is because there is a risk a contract was entered into with the undue influence of the bribe.  Hence, my reference to corporate governance.  I wasn't speaking about the tax system.

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/corporate/fsa-anti-bribery-investment-banks.pdf

You might think this is not a concern, but it's not atypical for regulators to side with the consumer when money is lost.  PPI. Banking Scams.  I'd argue common sense would protect the average consumer for both of these but there you go.

When working for a multi national, they were very very cautious about anything that could be looked at as bribery, even on a very small scale. Gifts were limited to cheap pens and such like.
However taking clients out to lunch/dinner was seen as OK, as long as it was not excessive.

Bostonerimus1

Albermarle said:

kinger101 said:

Albermarle said:

kinger101 said:

cfw1994 said:

wjr4 said:

IFAs rarely take people out to lunch now, I find the idea of that very outdated. If you don’t understand that you’re paying the annual fee for, question it.

It’s evening meal overnight in the Cotswolds for my pal….SJP still have cash to splash, it appears 🫣

And no corporate governance procedures it seems be we knew that already.

It will come back to haunt them.  

I do not think there is any issue in any business, if they choose to entertain clients .
In fact the tax system is quite benign on the subject. When I used to claim expenses, if I bought a meal for a colleague, I could not claim the VAT back. However is it was a meal related to business i.e. with a customer or supplier, then you can claim the VAT back ( or more correctly your employer can ) .

It is because there is a risk a contract was entered into with the undue influence of the bribe.  Hence, my reference to corporate governance.  I wasn't speaking about the tax system.

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/corporate/fsa-anti-bribery-investment-banks.pdf

You might think this is not a concern, but it's not atypical for regulators to side with the consumer when money is lost.  PPI. Banking Scams.  I'd argue common sense would protect the average consumer for both of these but there you go.

When working for a multi national, they were very very cautious about anything that could be looked at as bribery, even on a very small scale. Gifts were limited to cheap pens and such like.
However taking clients out to lunch/dinner was seen as OK, as long as it was not excessive.

When I worked for the US Federal Government we were never allowed to accept anything from a contractor. So we had to account for all meals and couldn't even accept things like project T-shirts and the contractors had to pay for any logo items produced by the Government agency on a project. This is a massive contrast to a friend of mine who works in US health insurance where taking executives and spouses on lavish holidays disguised as conferences is common.

kinger101

Albermarle said:

kinger101 said:

Albermarle said:

kinger101 said:

cfw1994 said:

wjr4 said:

IFAs rarely take people out to lunch now, I find the idea of that very outdated. If you don’t understand that you’re paying the annual fee for, question it.

It’s evening meal overnight in the Cotswolds for my pal….SJP still have cash to splash, it appears 🫣

And no corporate governance procedures it seems be we knew that already.

It will come back to haunt them.  

I do not think there is any issue in any business, if they choose to entertain clients .
In fact the tax system is quite benign on the subject. When I used to claim expenses, if I bought a meal for a colleague, I could not claim the VAT back. However is it was a meal related to business i.e. with a customer or supplier, then you can claim the VAT back ( or more correctly your employer can ) .

It is because there is a risk a contract was entered into with the undue influence of the bribe.  Hence, my reference to corporate governance.  I wasn't speaking about the tax system.

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/corporate/fsa-anti-bribery-investment-banks.pdf

You might think this is not a concern, but it's not atypical for regulators to side with the consumer when money is lost.  PPI. Banking Scams.  I'd argue common sense would protect the average consumer for both of these but there you go.

When working for a multi national, they were very very cautious about anything that could be looked at as bribery, even on a very small scale. Gifts were limited to cheap pens and such like.
However taking clients out to lunch/dinner was seen as OK, as long as it was not excessive.

Hence my comment.  I'd certainly never be able to give or receive client entertainment as lavish as SJP are giving.

af1963

Any MPs elected since 2020 are not allowed to employ family members. I'm not sure how many pre-2020 MPs who had spouses on the payroll are still there, but it was 87 (out of 650) in 2021, and there has been a big change in House of Commons membership since then.