K A Javid & CO

20/06/2024

20/06/2024

Here's a definition of chic Timeless elegance!
Diamond in perfection 1969 Mercedes-Benz 280 SL Pagoda beautiful shining Candy Apple Red!

20/06/2024

Identifying the GAP between vision and ex*****on is where your work begins.

20/06/2024

To build a foundation for innovation, we all need to begin with the right perspective.

Leadership, Performance, and the Gap. And how you identify the GAP.

If you keep your focus on these three elements, you can build the foundation for success.
Namak Mandi.

17/05/2023

Happy day to Zafer Hashim 🎉

A national treasure, his love of nature has been an inspiration to millions.

Today's a good time to repeat his words to encourage us all to ...

“If we are to save what we have left, we must act now”

09/02/2022

Accounts Senior
Full time
We are looking for a part qualified/qualified accountant to expand our team.

You will be working with a broad range of clients within a variety of industries within a knowledgeable and friendly team.

Duties will include accounts preparation, tax computations, preparation of management accounts, preparing statutory accounts, supporting clients with queries and being on hand to support more junior members of our team.

Previous practice experience is required.

In return we offer a competitive package and a great opportunity to join our reputable firm.

If you would like to be considered please send your CV to [email protected]

Send a message to learn more

06/12/2021

High-end matchmaking company wins £1.7m VAT dispute

The Upper Tribunal (UT) has granted the appeal from the upmarket matchmaking business to overturn a 1.7m VAT bill on its services

The Upper Tribunal has overturned the decision of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and granted the appeal from Gray & Farrar International LLP against HMRC’s decision that the services that Gray & Farrar provided were not consultancy and was subject to VAT worth £1,745,667.

The Mayfair-based company provided an exclusive matchmaking service. On introduction to the agency, clients were interviewed face to face and, after dates with prospective matches, were contacted by a liaison team that gave feedback, advice, and coaching. Gray & Farrah would continue the coaching throughout the client’s membership.

Clients sign up for a 12-month membership, which gives at least eight introductions from Gray & Farrar’s existing members, at the cost of £15,000 a year, while they can also hire the firm to track down a bespoke partner from outside its client list could cost anything from £25,000 to £140,000.

For VAT purposes, Gray & Farrar treated its service as a supply of consultancy which meant that clients resident outside the EU were not charged UK VAT on its fees according to Article 59 of the Principal VAT Directive 2006.

This legislation includes ‘the services of consultants, engineers, consultancy firms, lawyers, accountants, and other similar services, as well as data processing and the provision of information’

In 2018, HMRC rose assessments on Gray & Farrar’s accounts for output tax on supplies made to non-EU customers for the VAT periods December 2012 to June 15, September to December 2015, March to June 2016, and June to September 2016.

HMRC rejected Gray & Farrar’s attempt to adopt a zero VAT status and placed the companies supply in the UK meaning that the company owed £1,745,667 in VAT. Gray & Farrah appealed this decision to the First-Tier Tribunal.

HRMC argued that Gray & Farrar used ‘intangible skills of intuition’ and ‘reading of emotions’ in order to find suitable matches for its clients and took the view that this was not consultancy, and all of the income should have been subject to UK VAT, regardless of the clients’ location.

HMRC also stated that consultancy services should be regarded as the giving of reasoned, evidence-based intellectual advice. Gray & Farrar’s service, in HMRC’s view, did not qualify.

It also argued that as Gray & Farrar’s services did not fall within Article 59 which means that was not treated as supplied outside the EU and therefore it was outside the scope of Schedule 4 of the Value Added Tax (VAT) 1994.

Gray & Farrar argued that the question is whether the appellant's services were, or were similar to, the services provided by consultants or consultancy firms, or fell within ‘data processing and the provision of information.’

The First Tier Tribunal ruled in favour of HMRC stating that only the managing partner held the necessary expertise to be regarded as a consultant, and that staff simply ‘gave the clients a listening ear and the kind of support someone might obtain from a friend.’ The tribunal ruled that most of the client contact was handled by the staff and that the managing partner did not give sufficient input for the service of consultancy to be the predominant service.

Gray & Farrar appealed this decision to the Upper Tribunal. The questions in front of the Upper Tribunal were whether services of consultants were limited to supplies by members of the liberal professions? Whether the phrase ‘data processing and the provision of information’ denote two separate activities or one activity? and what was the nature of the supply made by G&F?

HMRC characterised the activities of members of the liberal professions as having three key characteristics: they are activities of an intellectual character, require high-level qualifications, and are subject to clear and strict professional regulation. However, the tribunal disagreed with HMRC and concluded that its characterisation was simply a means of describing the activity of consultants and was not intended to limit the scope of the term.

The Tribunal also decided that the term ‘data processing and the provision of information’ were two separate activities where were the processing of data for a customer and (the provision of information to a customer. It was not, as HMRC argued, necessary for both activities to be present for a service to be covered by the phrase.

It was common ground before the Upper Tribunal that Gray & Farrar made a single composite supply but the parties differed over how to characterise the supply. Both parties stated that the First Tier Tribunal had applied an incorrect test when addressing this question.

The Upper Tribunal also concluded that, because it had not considered the ‘predominate element’ test which derives from the ECJ cases of Mesto [2013] BVC 559 and Levob [2007] BVC 155, that the First Tier Tribunal had erred in law here and the Upper Tribunal ruled that this error should be rectified by it re-making the decision.

The Upper Tribunal concluded that, from the point of view of the typical consumer, the predominant element of Gray & Farrar’s service was ‘the advice which was provided as part of the matchmaking service combined with the information relating to a potential match’.

The effect of its conclusion on the first two issues was that this predominant element fell within Article 59. The advice was expert advice which fell within the definition of ‘services of consultants’ and the absence of data processing did not mean that the provision of information fell outside Article 59. The Tribunal also stated that the fact that Gray & Farrar provided a liaison service after introductions were made was also not sufficient to disturb this conclusion.

The Upper Tribunal granted the appeal.

11/11/2020

Job Title: Accounts Office Junior / Assistant Location: Glasgow
A new opportunity has opened for a Full-Time Permanent Accounts Office Junior/ Assistant to work within our busy Accounts Office located in Glasgow City Centre. This position would ideally suit candidates who are looking for their first job and have an interest in finance/accounts. Your working hours will be between 9 am to 5 pm From Monday to Friday. The successful candidate will be working alongside a team of accountants.

Your new role will include:
• Screening incoming calls
• Scheduling / managing client appointments
• Greeting visitors / clients
• Manage the post and email
• Support and Assist other members of staff with bookkeeping, VAT and other ad hoc admin duties.
• Liaise with clients & request / provide financial information.

What we are looking for:
• Knowledge of Microsoft Excel and Word
• A good understanding of computer systems with good IT skills
• A motivated & organized individual, with a flexible approach to work
• The ability to work using your own initiative and within a team environment
• Good attention to detail, as a high level of accuracy is essential
• Excellent communicator and a clear & confident telephone manner
• The ability to work under pressure & work to deadlines

What to do now:
If you're interested in this role, please forward an up-to-date copy of your CV.

Unfortunately, due to the volume of applications we receive, if you were not contacted within 10 days of your application then assume you have been unsuccessful on this occasion.

23/10/2020

HMRC's "nudge" letters on the CJRS

HMRC is sending out "nudge" letters to employers advising them that they may need to repay amounts received under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.

The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme ("CJRS") operated on the basis of "pay now, check later". Under "pay now", almost £30 billion was paid under the CJRS and related schemes. It is clear that the Government is keen to recoup any amounts that should not have been paid as swiftly as possible; and the "check later" stage has commenced. Numerous reports of alleged abuse of CJRS have been made to HMRC and multiple criminal investigations are underway. The other element of the check later stage is being undertaken by HMRC seeking to ensure that employers carry out the checks. HMRC is in the process of sending "nudge letters" to employers, informing them that they need to contact HMRC and may need to repay monies that have been paid.

The 'carrot' for compliance is a quasi-amnesty in respect of penalties that is in place until 20 October 2020. The 'stick' for non-compliance is 'naming and shaming' and potential criminal prosecution.

The dual approach of (a) a quasi amnesty and (b) sending "nudge" letters to elicit disclosures of non-compliance by taxpayers is one that is favoured by HMRC where there has been non-compliance in a particular area, such as offshore bank accounts or non resident landlords. Once HMRC receives information that there is a risk area where significant numbers of UK taxpayers have received income or gains that have not been declared on their UK tax returns, HMRC nudges that class of taxpayers to either certify that their tax returns are correct or make a disclosure of unpaid tax.

A previous example of this approach was in relation to the payment of rents to overseas owners of UK residential property. In Autumn 2019, HMRC dispatched waves of nudge letters to non-UK resident owners of UK residential property and their tenants. By the letters, HMRC reminded taxpayers of the obligations arising under the non-resident landlord scheme and in respect of the Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings or ATED regime.

HMRC's approach is to nudge a class. It is very unlikely that the letters have been issued on the basis of a detailed review of individual claims. The legality of nudge letters is debatable, but the letters can not be ignored. And, considerable care need to be taken when responding. Inaccurate responses can be used as the basis for a criminal investigation (and possible prosecution).

Overview of HMRC's rules for recovery
Schedule 16, Finance Act 2020 allows HMRC to recover amounts equivalent to CJRS payments to which the recipient was not, or is no longer, entitled by imposing a tax charge equivalent to 100% of any payment to which its recipient was not entitled. The charge applies, regardless of whether any overpayment arose from innocent, careless or deliberate behaviour.

HMRC can issue assessments now, where it considers that there has been an overpayment, rather than in accordance with the standard timetable for assessments. Assessed amounts are payable within 30 days; late payment may lead to the incurring of late payment interest.

The date by which an employer must notify overpayments to HMRC is the latest of:
(a) 90 days after receiving CJRS monies to which it was not entitled;
(b) 90 days after a change of circumstances, so that it was no longer entitled to CJRS monies; and
(c) 20 Oc‌to‌be‌r 2020, provided that (a) or (b) was before 20 J‌ul‌y 2020.

A failure to notify can result in the imposition of a penalty equal to 100% of the CJRS payment.

The 20 October 2020 date in particular provides a quasi-amnesty. Not making a declaration by the relevant date can result in HMRC charging penalties of up to 100% of the tax charge for a failure to notify.

What should employers do?
If a nudge letter has been received, an audit of the CJRS grants that have been received should be undertaken. We recommend that legal advice should be taken before responding to HMRC, particularly if it is necessary to notify HMRC of any potential liabilities.

Recipients of grants should take action now in reviewing their claims, in order to make disclosures before 20 October 2020. The CJRS rules are diverse and very detailed, and it is very simple for employers to have made innocent mistakes. Issues might include simple clerical errors in computations for example, such as miscalculating hourly pay, accidentally matching a calculation to an incorrect name, or making mistakes in respect of furlough rotations or holiday periods.

Regardless of how innocently mistakes have been made, HMRC's "nudge" letters and the legislation, suggest that HMRC's assumption after the 20 October 2020, will be that employers have acted deliberately in a culpable sense in not rectifying any issues before that date. That assumption may well involve the imposition of penalties, but will also carry with it reputation risks and considerable costs associated with dealing with HMRC enquiries, which may become criminal enquiries. The onus is very much on recipients to come forward now. Any costs of carrying out an audit a this stage, will likely be a fraction of the costs involved in dealing with any later HMRC enquiry after 20 October 2020.

22/10/2020

Job Support Scheme Updates 22 October 2020

Today, 22nd October 2020, the Chancellor has announced significant changes to the Job Support Scheme which shall replace the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme with effect from 1st November 2020. Previously we understood that under the JSS, an employee would have to work at least 33% of their normal hours with the cost of the unworked hours being split three ways between government (subject to a cap), the employer and the employee. The employee would therefore have received a minimum of 77% of their normal pay. However, allegedly in response to increasing demands from businesses subjected to the newly introduced “tiered” lockdown measures across England, the government have significantly increased their contribution towards employment costs for those undertaking fewer than their normal hours.



In summary, now employees must work only a minimum of 20% of their normal hours in order to be eligible under the scheme. For a 5-day per week worker, this equates to just one day of work. Further, instead of splitting the cost of the unworked hours equally, government will pick up most of the tab with their contribution increasing to up to 62% and the employer’s contribution decreasing to just 5% of unworked wage costs. The government’s monthly cap will almost double from £697.92 to £1,541.75. There appears to be little to no impact on take-home pay for the employee, but the employer will continue to fund pension contributions and NICs. A government example states that if someone is paid £587 per week for unworked hours (the employer pays for the worked hours), the government pays £543 and the employer £44.



As before, all small and medium employers across the UK will be eligible to participate in the scheme, as will large employers which have experienced a negative impact on turnover as a result of coronavirus. Participating employers remain eligible for the Job Retention Bonus of £1,000 from February 2021.



There is a separate ‘Job Support Scheme Closed’ (a rather unfortunate name) for businesses required to close by law, e.g. in Tier 3 English areas, which supports pay for employees unable to work for 7 days or longer. The government will support the eligible affected businesses by paying 67% of employees’ pay, up to a maximum of £2,100 a month. This also applies across the UK and will be mapped to Scotland’s forthcoming 5 Tiers when full details are available.



We shall continue to update our live guidance on the Coronavirus Employer Resource Centre and shall be publishing template letters and other useful documents for our clients as soon as possible.

22/10/2020

Eligibility criteria for all aspects of the Job Support Scheme
The following eligibility criteria apply to all employers and/or employees being claimed for under the Job Support Scheme, whether the employer is claiming the JSS Open grant or the JSS Closed grant.

An employer can claim the JSS Open and JSS Closed grant at the same time for different employees. An employer cannot claim for a single employee under both schemes at the same time.

Bodies in receipt of public funds
Organisations that have staff costs that are fully publicly funded (even if they are not in the public sector), should use that money to continue paying their staff, and not use the Job Support Scheme.

Organisations can use the scheme if they are not fully funded by public grants, for the proportion of their revenue disrupted due to coronavirus. They should contact their sponsor department or respective administration for further guidance.

Those that do claim should do so using the same process as all other employers.

Employees who can be claimed for (JSS Open and JSS Closed)
Eligible employers will be able to claim the Job Support Scheme grant for employees who were on their PAYE payroll between 6 April 2019 and 11:59pm on 23 September 2020. This means an RTI Full Payment Submission notifying payment in respect of that employee must have been made to HMRC at some point from 6 April 2019 up to 11:59pm 23 September 2020.

Employers can only claim for employees that were in their employment on 23 September 2020. If employees ceased employment after 23 of September 2020 and were subsequently rehired, then employers can claim for them.

An individual is an employee for the purposes of this scheme if they are treated as an employee for Income Tax purposes.

Employees can be on any type of contract, including zero hours or temporary contracts.

Agency workers are regarded as employees of an employment agency for the purposes of this scheme, provided they are employees for Income Tax purposes.

Employees do not need to have been furloughed under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme to be eligible for the Job Support Scheme.

Employers will be able to top up employee wages above the level of minimum contributions at their own expense if they wish.

Employers cannot claim both JSS Open and JSS Closed in respect of a single employee for the same day.

Training in hours unworked hours
Employees will be able to undertake training voluntarily in non-working hours. Where time spent on training attracts a minimum wage entitlement in excess of the grant payment, employers will need to pay the additional wages.

Working Tax Credits
Employees whose hours reduce due to the COVID-19 pandemic will continue to have access to Working Tax Credit and its childcare element for the duration of the JSS scheme.

Parental leave
The government is putting will introduce parental pay legislation as soon as possible (covering maternity allowance, statutory maternity/, paternity, shared parental, adoption and parental bereavement pay) to avoid parents losing out on their entitlement to parental pay as a result of being put on the Job Support Scheme during the relevant assessment period.