Chris Madge & Co

Cases

We have set out below examples of cases dealt with by this Firm.

Tax Investigations

• Client under duress agreed VAT omissions, based on omitted profits of £175,000. As a result Inland Revenue Special Compliance became involved and we were asked to act on behalf of the Client. From a business economic exercise argued and agreed profit omissions of £65,000 and as a result re-negotiated settlement was agreed with Customs & Excise.
• Customs commenced legal proceedings against an Accountant for a VAT fraud. We were able to persuade Customs to accept a Compound Settlement and the Client avoided prosecution and publicity.
• Inland Revenue sought access to an accountants practice working papers following criticism of his accounting practices. We conducted an independent review and provided assurances to the Revenue, therefore making it unnecessary for the Revenue to conduct their own review of the practice.
• Revenue alleged omitted profits of some £700,000 and took the case before the General Commissioners. Following our representations, the Commissioners accepted our contentions that the omitted profits were £135,000.
• In a Hansard investigation, a business had unvouched cash expenditure of £850,000 over a number of years. Based on a business economic exercise we obtained agreement to £600,000 being allowable, potentially saving the Client in tax, interest and penalties a like amount.

Tax Compliance

• The Revenue alleged the subcontractors of a large building contracting firm were employees and presented the Company with a NIC liability of over £300,000. We represented the Client and the Revenue ultimately accepted the Status of the subcontractors as being Self Employed resulting in a nil settlement.
• The Revenue would not issue a subcontractors certificate on alleged past tax offences of a Client. We represented the Client before the General Commissioners, which resulted in the decision being overturned.
• A Planning Scheme in the leisure sector reduced a Clients VAT liability by £40,000 p.a.
• A husband and wife partnership had existed for many years, but for tax purposes the husband had been treated as a "Sole Trader". As a result we lodged an "Error and Mistake Claim" which was accepted and resulted in a substantial tax repayment.