If you have been trading for 2 years with out MLR and then try to apply for it with HMRC will they back date a fine as they will be able to see two prior years of trading?
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I would hope so. The need to be supervised for MLR is widely publicised in our industry. We all need to have it, and pay for the privilege. This means people trading without it not only have an unfair advantage, but the plus 1 rule would suggest if they don't comply with that requirement, there'll be another they are not compliant with.
Having said that, who could possibly second guess HMRC?
You do realise that to practice without MLR carries a possible unlimited fine and two year jail sentence (which means that you would lose all memberships of any professional body that you are a member of).
Yes I agree that HMRC should in many circumstances have more joined up thinking over things like this.
Of course, if you don't have a practice certificate from the ACCA then you do not really need an agent login as you are only allowed to work up to trial balance with no filing so in that instance HMRC would not be able to check your MLR by that method.
Obviously though you have realised your mistake and are trying to rectify it which should one would hope at least win some brownie points... I wouldn't mention to HMRC though that you have an ACCA qualification as MLR is in the syllabus so plausible deniability goes straight out the window.
Shaun.
p.s. Kris, don't understand that plus one rule thast you talk about? That sounds like if you've got an overdue library book then sure as damnit your grannies chopped up in the freezer.
I may occassionally ignore a law that I think is stupid and I had nothing to do with putting in place but that doesn't mean to say that I would disobey a law that I see a reason for.
Think that's all summed up neaatly in Kohlbergs stages of moral development.... Poses some excellent dilema's... Actually, lets do that as a seperate post rather than in a ps.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
It's a policing thing Shaun. For example if you search someone and find a knife or drugs then the chances greatly increase of finding something else. Equally a car with an expired excise license is more likely to have no MOT or insurance.
Basically it stands to reason if people are willing to ignore one law, then they are more likely to ignore another too.
The problem is that when we start choosing which laws we fancy following and which we'd rather ignore because we don't buy into we end up with the freeman of the land pish.
One of the Dilema's (called the Heinz dilema if you want to look it up) was if your wife is dieing but could be cured wth a drug which is only available from one Chemist and the price being charged is more than you could afford if you scraped together every penny that you had, then would you accept that your wife would die because you did not have the money or would you steal the drug.
The scenario is more complex than that but that is the dilema that it boils down to.
Do we obey laws and regulations only when such are convenient to obey? Or, do we blindly follow the laws?
The scenario can be perceived as extreme but the question that it asks is scalable.
Is the mother who steals a tin of food to feed a child morally reprehensible?
The reasoning that someone may have for disobeying one law does not follow that the person would disobey another.
Seems quite ironic really that the higher up the scale of moral development that one goes the more likely it is justifiable in the mind of the individual it is that it s right to steal the drug.
There is no right or wrong answer to the predicament. It is simply a means of determining one's stage of moral and cognitive development.
Personally in that scenario I would steal the drug, but that does not mean that I would take change from a coffee machine that was not mine so, to my mind that plus one rule (which I now think that I understand what you mean) isn't right.
That was an interesting chat to end the day on.
Have a good one and talk tomorrow,
Shaun.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Right, I now definitely understand what you mean and I'm seeing your arguement... I can see myself pondering that as I go to sleep tonight.
Certainly if someone chooses to disobey laws for personal gain rather than some higher moral reasoning then I can see the logic that they would choose to ignore multiples rather than such being isolated incidents.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Have a search on youtube for "freeman of the land" or "Scottish Sovereign" and you'll see how crazy it can get. For those who don't know these 'dafties' (I don't know another word for them) believe that they can pick and choose what laws apply to them. They agree to common law but believe statute is a contract with the state that must be specifically opted into on a law by law basis.
Just read the Wikipedia entry for them... I think that dafties was a very apt word.
Their ideas are a bastardisation of the social contract basically taking only the part of it that they want and ignoring the rest.
In being part of society we are in a contract with the state as the alternative is anarchy.
As with Kohlberg's work there are cases where it is justifiable to break the contract.
Also, one should never blindly accept laws but they should be fought through the system rather than simply ignored.
The mindset of these freemen of the land is no different to some numptie waking up one morning and deciding that they are going to start using their own currency... Unless society at large adopts that currency then he is simply a numptie.
These freemen want to exist outside society but still be part of it... Doesn't work that way.
Right, this time I'm really going to bed... Although... The repeat of Suits is just coming on...
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Is that anarchy in the sense that most people think of it, or the real definition of anarchy, which is actually rather nice?
Didn't George Orwell write about a world where things such as MLR were imposed, or should I be careful what I say while waiting for Big Brother to approve my MLR application, in case I end up like Winston Smith?
well after all the issues I have found from ACCA and my own ignorance in setting up in practise. Think I will just dissolve the company. I only did tax returns for 2 people in the first year and 5 people in the second year. If I close the company down and send HMRC a letter saying I am no longer trading and to deactivate my agent log in. Would it still be an idea to let them know of no money laundering in place or just leave it at business no longer trading no more MLR implications
