Ltd Company - In a Mess

[EICIC]

If you have the funds - which you clearly have - I would set up a new co with VAT number and bank account and get an Insolvency practitioner to liquidate the old co properly.

This looks a good business and for the cost involved around 5k for a good IP, it cleans the mess quickly and you can move on with no comebacks.

I think you take an uneccesary risk/hassle with striking off - but in any case its a long drawn out death.

Too many business try and strike off when they have funds to liquidate and end up compounding their problems.

Of course there are also seem to slip through.

Whatever you decide - get another accountant.

If you want an IP recommendation PM me I know a few good uns.

 

[Paul_Rosser]

There is no winding up order - that is the whole point!

When a company is struck off, that is that - it ceases to exist and no investigation is conducted into the reasons for its failure.

When a company is wound up however, the Official Receiver is appointed to act as liquidator and to look into the affairs of the company. This responsibility may be passed onto a licenced insolvency practitioner.

If HMRC was aware that a company owed significant sums in VAT they would certainly object to it being struck off, and initiate winding up proceedings leading to a formal liquidation. If they were unaware however, they would allow the strike off to go through unnopposed.

Sorry thats what I meant, could the HMRC object to the company being struck off whilst owing money. Or if the striking off went through and the HMRC realised later could they request the company is reinstated ?

 

[kevin.doran]

Would his current accountant have a duty of care to inform HMRC that taxes are owed but of his clients intention to instead strike off?

 

[Posilan]

Would his current accountant have a duty of care to inform HMRC that taxes are owed but of his clients intention to instead strike off?

His current accountant would appear to not have a duty of care to anyone (especially their client!).

 

[Spongebob]

Sorry thats what I meant, could the HMRC object to the company being struck off whilst owing money. Or if the striking off went through and the HMRC realised later could they request the company is reinstated ?

The whole point is that HMRC are completely unaware that there is a potential VAT liability. They are therefore not going to object to the striking off of a company which is only a year or so old and which has never submited a return of any kind. There is nothing about this case which will flag up any reason at HMRC to make an objection. Hundreds of companies are struck off the register in this way every week.

Technically, HMRC could have the company reinstated if they subsequently discovered a VAT liability. They would then have to wind it up through the High Court and wait for the Official Receiver to liquidate the company and conduct their standard cursory 'investigation.'

For this to happen however, a rather improbable series of events would have to take place.

Firstly, HMRC would have to become aware of the potential VAT liability. As this liability is made up of the VAT componant of many thousands of very small retail transactions I think it is safe to say that the OP's dilemma will stay firmly under the radar. For a pattern to emerge would require the more or less simultaneous discovery of the invoice discrepancy by dozens of VAT inspectors across the country, and for each one of them to deem that the erroneous charging of VAT on a twenty quid bill was worthy of being taken further.

Then, even if suspicians were raised at HMRC, a senior manager would have to take the brave decision that his organisation's time and money would be well spent ressurecting a tiny dead company in order to spend more money winding it up in the hope that the Official Receiver could claw back a few quid for them. Given the box-ticking and arse-covering culture pertaining in all beaurocratic institutions this is highly unlikely.

And if this improbable scenario did actually unfold and the Offical Receiver was appointed liquidator of the newly revived company?

The OP is in exactly the same position as he would have been in had he heeded EICIC's ridiculous advice and appointed an insolvency practitioner in the first place.

Except that he's saved himself the five grand (plus VAT!)

As ever, my advice is not based on exactly what the law says - I am far more interested in how the system actually works and what you can get away with without any risk of going to jail.

 

[Spongebob]

If you have the funds - which you clearly have - I would set up a new co with VAT number and bank account and get an Insolvency practitioner to liquidate the old co properly.

And reveal voluntarily to HMRC a potential liability for VAT and CT which they currently know nothing about and are highly unlikely ever to know about?

Madness!

This looks a good business and for the cost involved around 5k for a good IP, it cleans the mess quickly and you can move on with no comebacks.

What comebacks? Read my post above. The highly improbable and very worst case scenario is that the company is ressurected and then liquidated by the Official Receiver. The liquidation will be the same, whether conducted by the OR for nothing or an IP for £5k + VAT

I think you take an uneccesary risk/hassle with striking off - but in any case its a long drawn out death.

What risk?
What hassle?

As for long and drawn out, Companies House normally strikes off companies within a few weeks.

Too many business try and strike off when they have funds to liquidate and end up compounding their problems.

On the contrary. Too many companies waste money they can't afford on an IP when they could either apply for strike off or wait for a creditor to force a compulsory liquidation at no cost and with minimal problems.

Whatever you decide - get another accountant.

Agreed

If you want an IP recommendation PM me I know a few good uns.

Ah! I smell a vested interest!

 

[Paul_Rosser]

Makes perfect sense, as no return has been put in only the OP and his accountant know about any CT or VAT liability.

Seems the OP does have a 'get out of jail' card.

Well unless he goes down the IP route but that would be crazy.

 

[Spongebob]

Makes perfect sense, as no return has been put in only the OP and his accountant know about any CT or VAT liability.

Seems the OP does have a 'get out of jail' card.

Well unless he goes down the IP route but that would be crazy.

Exactly.

I'm glad somebody gets it!

 

[Paul_Rosser]

Exactly.

I'm glad somebody gets it!

Your advice makes perfect sense (as always), but then I'm not trying to make comission from introducing an IP into the mix, unlike some others ;-)

 

[EICIC]

The key factors when I offered my opinion where.

The OP is setting up a new co and trading on in the same.line.of business.

The amounts involved realtive to the cost of a liquidation.

The OP has the funds to do this now.

In this situation I would like the certainty that this is dealt with.

You cant guarantee that it would not be investigated and reinstated and wound up.

An Ip appointed by the OR would have a field day.

And as you are probably leaving the accountant can you rely on him?

Is that ridiculous? Its a small hit to save a lot of money, take control of the situation and stay on the right side when you are looking to trade on.

Oh and get the new co to pay for it and claim the VAT back on the liquidation.

 

[Blue Steel]

Once the original company has been struck off what happens to money in the companys bank account.

Would a transfer to the shareholders make them later liable for personal income tax?

 

[Spongebob]

Once the original company has been struck off what happens to money in the companys bank account.

Would a transfer to the shareholders make them later liable for personal income tax?

The company bank account is frozen when the company is struck off and anything in it becomes the property of the Crown. Needless to say no-one in their right mind would leave any money in the company bank account!

Personally, I'd probably draw it out in cash a grand or so at a time over a few weeks and stow it under my mattress.

 

[Margiste]

Hi my husband and I have had a business for 11 years. This last year has been horrendous, my husband had an accident at work the end of last year and has been off since. He was the ' Main guy ' he did all the ordering seen all the reps got the good deals, but for the last 12 months we've just got by.
One of our creditors took us to court over an outstanding invoice although we had made an arrangement to pay, we were paying £50 a week and they wanted £100 we owed them £863 and we were paying them by standing order and we ended up owing them £1300 Anyway we got in touch with the Business Debtline and they advised us to do a "Strike off "
We sent off the letters advising our creditors, landlords we owed about £6k, 2 creditors we owed a £1k each. Business rates we owed about £3k and we have a £10k overdraft which was to the hilt. Hmrc we owe maybe £5k. We haven't heard anything back from anybody but the 3 months isn't up til the end of December. We have been told that the £5K approx what we have in assets could be sold to pay our staff redundancy is this true. And has anybody been through this Strike off situation. My husband is suffering PTSD from the accident and I can't sleep with all this worrying its a nightmare :-(

 

[EICIC]

I can appreciate Spongebob, will have different views on this.

This is a very different situation.

My first question is the overdraft Personally Guaranteed? Liquidating or Striking off wont get rid of that PG and the bank are likely to block the strike off.

Did you even tell the bank? The only other blocker is HMRC.

In my experience other creditors owed a few grand may object to a strike off initially but wont try to wind the company up so it will go eventually.

I would take some insolvency advice and if needed sell the assets to pay for it rather than paying a fee and letting them sell the assets.

I cant see how it would cost you anymore than the current situation and would take the stress away.

In particular the redundancies would be covered instead by the government and you could both make a claim if you were employed as well.

 

[Anna Chandley]

A number of posters have questioned whether it was correct to charge VAT before the VAT registration number was issued. I can't see that there has been an answer to this yet so here it is.

When you submit an application for VAT registration you enter the date from which you wish to be registered. So say that you apply to be VAT registered from 1 January 2012. You will need to account for VAT on all sales from 1 January 2012 but you will not have a VAT registration number until a later date and cannot issue a VAT invoice until you receive your registration number.


So you make a sale of £100 net. You issue an invoice for £120 but do not show the extra £20 as VAT. The invoice should not mention VAT other than possibly a note to say VAT registration number pending.

When you receive your VAT registration number you will need to reissue a proper VAT invoice for the sales aready made since 1 January.

For the sale above you would issue a new invoice showing £100 plus £20 VAT.


Anna

 

[Tej]

How do you have access to the online VAT submission service without a VAT number? As far as I recall, you cant register for it until you get the registration certificate.

This is the most interesting point ... how??

particularly as the OP says

"The online VAT submission service always said "no returns due" and still does now."

on what basis and on which VAT Reg number... as the op does not have one!!

I suspect that the OP is a windup... think he should go off and enjoy a superb holiday with the 80K......

 

[Margiste]

Hi we notified the bank, and have applied to HMRC to De-register for VAT, although we have approx £5k in assets an IP told me its only worth about £1500 to them and they would be looking for £3-4000 to declare us insolvent 2 individual IPs told me to go down the strike off rd.

 

[upthecreek]

No mystery here - I had another company some years ago and the VAT registration was meant to be transferred across to the new company (my accountant advised it was easier than getting a new one), it never made it across. Even though the old company no longer exists, the VAT registration (I was advised) would just transfer across to my new venture hence the confusion about VAT numbers (used the old one) but was unable to submit VAT returns. It kept me confused long enough and only just recently did I find that all the paperwork and transfer details went AWOL. That fact that I could login and try to submit a return made me incorrectly think that the VAT number was still at least partly active. But HMRC informed me that they had de-activated the number and I need to apply for a new one. This is definitely not a wind up. I'm real and had a lot of worries before coming to this forum. Thank you all for your help - especially SpongeBob, all view have been useful to me greatly!

 

[EICIC]

Hi we notified the bank, and have applied to HMRC to De-register for VAT, although we have approx £5k in assets an IP told me its only worth about £1500 to them and they would be looking for £3-4000 to declare us insolvent 2 individual IPs told me to go down the strike off rd.

If you can sell the assets for their true value to fund the liquidation they are quoting a good price.

If not then it will eventually go.

The bank may take a view if they are PG for your debt they wont.object - but they will collect although you can ususally do a payment plan.

 

[internetspaceships]

No mystery here - I had another company some years ago and the VAT registration was meant to be transferred across to the new company (my accountant advised it was easier than getting a new one), it never made it across. Even though the old company no longer exists, the VAT registration (I was advised) would just transfer across to my new venture hence the confusion about VAT numbers (used the old one) but was unable to submit VAT returns. It kept me confused long enough and only just recently did I find that all the paperwork and transfer details went AWOL. That fact that I could login and try to submit a return made me incorrectly think that the VAT number was still at least partly active. But HMRC informed me that they had de-activated the number and I need to apply for a new one. This is definitely not a wind up. I'm real and had a lot of worries before coming to this forum. Thank you all for your help - especially SpongeBob, all view have been useful to me greatly!

You have to be careful about taking the advice that suits your opinions best, as the best advice. Much of the advice that doesn't sound attractive on this thread comes from people who ARE VAT registered. As much as it may not suit, it's probably going to be more valid and realistic.

I have to say though that I've never come across the ability to transfer a VAT number from one company to another. That doesn't mean it's not possible of course, but I've never come across it.

Personally I think your accountant has thrown you under a bus and I'd be taking action against him, even though it probably won't help your current situation it may well prevent him screwing someone elses' business up.

Be careful though, most accountants don't step up to the plate when they have messed a client up. The word compensation creates all kinds of issues for them.

 

[Scalloway]

I have to say though that I've never come across the ability to transfer a VAT number from one company to another. That doesn't mean it's not possible of course, but I've never come across it.

You can do it if, for example, a sole trader is transferring his business to a limited company.

 

[internetspaceships]

You can do it if, for example, a sole trader is transferring his business to a limited company.

Thanks very much, I didn't know that and it's good to learn

 

[Charlie B ACS]

If you could explain this personal attack - I'd be interested. ... and how it got two people to thank you for it.

I'm no professional in this field - just an interested reader - and genuinely might have missed something. But to me, it looks like both you and EICIC have offered two very differing approaches to the OP... and even if yours is a lot better than the other, and if the OP goes for the spongebob plan, I think it will have been useful for him to have considered the alternative (which, for all I know, might be better).

EICIC is, I guess, in the business of IP, and might possibly benefit from the OP, or others, taking a voluntary IP route.. but that doesn't mean his advice is necessarily wrong or even biased - certainly not to a point where it deserves such a personal onslaught. Anyway, I guess that almost all businesspeople on here give advice from a slightly biased perspective. I certainly can't spot why there should have been mentions of bungs, suggestions of improper activities - and the aspersion that the OP can't grasp English. I'm surprised EICIC held his cool so well, in the face of what you wrote!

Sorry spongebob... because you clearly do lots of good on this forum... which is why I got interested in this thread in the first place. But I don't see the justification in slapping down this newcomer to the forum in this way. I genuinely might have missed a glaring clue that a professional in the field might have picked up... so you might want to give some sort of justification for post at 13:17 - because I might not be the only one who is thinking that it was out of order. :|

Bob is correct in his assertion that you cannot have a "Friendly" IP, they are duty-bound to treat matters fairly & equally in all cases. So suggesting that if you appoint an IP it will be treated differently is dangerously misleading.

 

[EICIC]

Bob is correct in his assertion that you cannot have a "Friendly" IP, they are duty-bound to treat matters fairly & equally in all cases. So suggesting that if you appoint an IP it will be treated differently is dangerously misleading.

The reason to appoint yourself now is not to get a "Friendly" IP - but taking advice at the appropriate moment, demonstrates to your creditors that you took action at the right time.

In that sense the IP will be a lot friendlier than one appointed by the OR at a later date to investigate why you didn't appoint at the point when you realised you cant pay the tax and your actions since then.

The OP wants to carry on in a new co in the same line of work.

If you genuinely cant afford insolvency and/or have minimal assets and creditors then striking off / waiting to be wound up is an option.

But trying to strike off to save a few thousand now seems a false economy to me IF at a later date it gets stopped or reinstated down the line.

 

[internetspaceships]

Personally I'd be interested in taking the OP under my wing.

Notwithstanding the mess that's been made here, anyone who can develop a business like this in a short space of time is worth investing in.

After all, the admin side can be handled separately.

 

[PrestonLad]

Bob is correct in his assertion that you cannot have a "Friendly" IP, they are duty-bound to treat matters fairly & equally in all cases. So suggesting that if you appoint an IP it will be treated differently is dangerously misleading.

I wouldn't doubt the veracity of this statement.

Personally, I'd assume that human nature would mean that, no matter how impartial and objective the IP should be, then one appointed at the behest of the troubled company is simply bound to be a little more accommodating than one appointed by the OR - who would be dealing with a company who is wholly in the wrong, and has been taken kicking and screaming to that point. But my assumption is not relevant to the argument here.

I see that EICIC has given an explanation for his statement. Again plausible... whether or not you agree... so I remain very uncomfortable with the very strong tone used to denigrate EICIC, without first asking questions. But I've said my piece, and won't comment further.

 

[Paul_Rosser]

PrestonLad, I think the problem occured as the advice being given by EICIC came across as a salespitch due to them offering to put the OP in touch with a "friendly IP", rather than offering unbiased advice.

If thats not the case then apologies to EICIC, just thats how it came across.

 

[Spongebob]

If you could explain this personal attack - I'd be interested. ... and how it got two people to thank you for it.

Perhaps it was a little strong - if offence was taken I apologise.

EICIC is not an insolvency practitioner; he appears to be some kind of 'debt counseller' who makes money out of people and companies in insolvent situations - in many cases this will involve introducing them to an IP with a view to setting up an IVA or CVA, or liquidating a company.

EICIC may very well be an honest and upstanding fellow providing a much needed and valuable service to people in desperate situations for minimal reward.

My experience of those working in this sector however, is rather different. Often recruited from the ranks of former double-glazing salemen, they operate as pseudo-IPs with very little regulation viewing their clients as cash machines. Their standard modus operandi is to scare a client to death about the perils of bankruptcy or compulsory liquidation and to sell the benefits of some kind of formal (and rather profitable) plan such as an IVA or CVA, even when in the majority of situations these plans are unsuitable and destined to certain failure.

Over the years, such characters have appeared periodically on these forums spouting their 'advice' and both myself and my good friend Alan Price have made it our business to stamp on them immediately. It was in this spirit that my response to EICIC was made.

If I have got him wrong, then once again I apologise unreservedly and hope to see him become a regular and valuable poster.

If my original instincts were correct however, and he is nothing but a shark looking for prey...

 

[Charlie B ACS]

Over the years, such characters have appeared periodically on these forums spouting their 'advice' and both myself and my good friend Alan Price have made it our business to stamp on them immediately. It was in this spirit that my response to EICIC was made.

If I have got him wrong, then once again I apologise unreservedly and hope to see him become a regular and valuable poster.

If my original instincts were correct however, and he is nothing but a shark looking for prey...

I'd be tempted to lean towards this Bob, there is no mention of a Consumer Credit License that I can see, there is no mention of the trading entity on the website, and when checking the domain ownership you get:

Domain name:
eicic.co.uk

Registrant:
**** *******

Registrant type:
UK Individual

Registrant's address:
The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their
address omitted from the WHOIS service.

It doesn't exactly have the ring of legitimacy, and still referencing an IP being "Friendly" because you have appointed them is misleading.

 

[EICIC]

Seriously is this how it works on here.

Have a contrary view with an established member who then wades in and the others kick you not only ripping your opinions apart but going on to attack character, business ethics etc

But I refuse to be bullied off.

Ill be honest ive asked for those two posts by spongebob to be removed.

I had hoped to raise my profile by offering ideas and help.based.on my experience.

I shouldnt need to do this but for the record my background was in accountancy , small businesses, finance residential and corporate and latterly corporate insolvency.

No double glazing. And in two and a bit years not one CVA - most fail anyway.

The focus is turnaround not insolvency in fact most of.my.clients dont.need an insolvency product.

Because of this I have an appreciation of the methods and the costs involved and get them the best commercial deal available to protect them.and the business.

I do not charge my clients a fee and I am transparent with my clients about fees I recieve.

My work comes mainly from referral from accountants who trust my judgement and my contacts.

I do not need a CCL because I do not advise clients personally.

I wont say anymore on this as it also may be construed as touting for business- I would like to think I can add something to this community and hopefully demonstate this in my contributions going forward.

Admittedly I set up the website before I left my old firm and thats an oversight.

I know exactly debt advisors Bob refers to. They charge upfront and they also make money administering the type of strike off you suggest.

Ask the IP you have mentioned for his opinion on this - I can guarantee it wont be strike off without telling Hmrc and stick the.money.in the business under a matress.

The OP really needs to speak to an IP immediately.

 

[EICIC]

It doesn't exactly have the ring of legitimacy, and still referencing an IP being "Friendly" because you have appointed them is misleading.

I never wrote that, it has been implied by other posters.

I have explained in detail why appointing yourself now is in my opinion the best option in this instance.

 

[Charlie B ACS]

The reason to appoint yourself now is not to get a "Friendly" IP - but taking advice at the appropriate moment, demonstrates to your creditors that you took action at the right time.

In that sense the IP will be a lot friendlier than one appointed by the OR at a later date to investigate why you didn't appoint at the point when you realised you cant pay the tax and your actions since then.

Do you deny writing this???

 

[Charlie B ACS]

EICIC,

When offered advice, I for one like to see how qualified the advice is, if you look on your site, because of the points I have already shown, it raises questions on the credibility of the advice. You simply do not know who you are dealing with, a person, a company or a bot.

Referring to "Friendly" IPs could infer that you know an IP with whom you have an arrangement, sadly there are some out there.

Personally, if credit has been extended to a company that has gone under, I want to know that money will be shared fairly once the assets have been liquidated, hence I disagree with a lot of the content on your site.

 

[Alan R Price]

I came across this thread rather late in the day and have read the whole thing. It's important to focus on OP's original post: suspending my innate cynicism for a moment, it seems his company has not got a VAT number because he has been badly-served by the VAT authorities. Assuming we are being told the whole story, it could be argued that the company should have put aside funds to deal with the debt; however it appears that fault can be laid at HMRC's door as well as OP's.

OP's company has £80,000 in the bank, seems to be profitable, and has a VAT debt of around £140,000 - although the position is unclear. He says the company does not have any other debts. All the talk about liquidation or striking-off therefore seems to me to be rather premature. Isn't the thing to do to go to HMRC with open hands, explain what has happened and then ask for a time-to-pay arrangement? Assuming OP wants to fulfil his responsibilities as a director this would be the most sensible (and in my view, honest) way forward. If HMRC refuse to cooperate, then by all means wind up the company and phoenix the business. If there is £80,000 in the bank and a trading business, it would be very risky to attempt a DIY liquidation and go for strike-off.

Perhaps I have missed something. Perhaps my view is too simplistic. But I think the facts are fairly straightforward and so is the solution.

 

[EICIC]

Do you deny writing this???

Please read the context.

The implication thrown at me was that I said appointing yourself made the IP friendly. I didn't.

I did then point out that appointing yourself in a timely manner rather than having an IP appointed by the OR following a DIY liquidation would make them "friendlier".

Its the wrong word and I brought that on myself.

I've offered my opinion that the OP should seek professional advice and why.

I wont comment further.

The website is optimised - it doesn't make that much sense and I took off the personal stuff because I was tired of all the marketing calls. Instead there is a link to my Linkedin page.

I came on here to opinion, share ideas and learn, not to have my honesty and legitimacy questioned and scrutinised.

Surely that's earned by the quality and content of your posts in this community going forward.

I would like to feel free to offer my opinions not temper them for fear of retribution.

And I don't see how any of this helps the OP. If anything it clouds the issues massively.

I will not comment further on this thread

 

[internetspaceships]

OP's company has £80,000 in the bank, seems to be profitable, and has a VAT debt of around £140,000 - although the position is unclear. He says the company does not have any other debts. All the talk about liquidation or striking-off therefore seems to me to be rather premature. Isn't the thing to do to go to HMRC with open hands, explain what has happened and then ask for a time-to-pay arrangement? Assuming OP wants to fulfil his responsibilities as a director this would be the most sensible (and in my view, honest) way forward. If HMRC refuse to cooperate, then by all means wind up the company and phoenix the business. If there is £80,000 in the bank and a trading business, it would be very risky to attempt a DIY liquidation and go for strike-off.

Perhaps I have missed something. Perhaps my view is too simplistic. But I think the facts are fairly straightforward and so is the solution.

I think that's the best piece of reasoned advice to be offered on this thread so far.

 

[Paul_Rosser]

Do you want to keep the business running ? If so speak to the HMRC, explain the situation and see if they will accept a payment plan.

As I said right at the start, but took Alan to articulate it a bit better

 

[upthecreek]

To Spongebob and all those who helped me.

Over 5 months ago I was in this mess, VAT messed up, money in the bank but large debt looming. I took Spongebob's advise.

Today the LTD company is DISSOLVED. There were no objections by HMRC/Customs at all.

I used the cash in the bank to "relaunch", I registered for VAT myself and have already made my first VAT return of £11k to HMRC so I am in business again and everything is fine.

Anyone who has a similar problem to me, please persevere, you can and WILL get through this. I am now running a profitable business and have learned lessons.

Thank you all - for all of your help!!!!

(PS Spongebob I tried to send you a PM but your inbox is full, no doubt from all the people you have saved!!)

 

[upthecreek]

For anyone with a similar problem to me, this is that advice from Spongebob that SAVED MY LIFE!!!

"It sounds like, despite your naivety with regard to accountancy matters, that you have a good business here.

I would take advantage of the rules and simply start afresh with a new company while getting the old one struck off. No-one apart from you and your accountant knows of any debt to HMRC and no return has ever been submitted to Companies House. An application for strike off will therefore go through unnopposed.

Conduct all further business through NewCo, learning from your mistakes, and fulfilling all your responsibilities with regard to VAT, PAYE, NI and CT.

Once OldCo has been struck off, no-one will ever look at it again. You have the ultimate 'get out of jail free' card!"

It worked. The strike off was unopposed. Old company marked as dissolved today. THANK YOU!!!!

 

[Spongebob]

For anyone with a similar problem to me, this is that advice from Spongebob that SAVED MY LIFE!!!

"It sounds like, despite your naivety with regard to accountancy matters, that you have a good business here.

I would take advantage of the rules and simply start afresh with a new company while getting the old one struck off. No-one apart from you and your accountant knows of any debt to HMRC and no return has ever been submitted to Companies House. An application for strike off will therefore go through unnopposed.

Conduct all further business through NewCo, learning from your mistakes, and fulfilling all your responsibilities with regard to VAT, PAYE, NI and CT.

Once OldCo has been struck off, no-one will ever look at it again. You have the ultimate 'get out of jail free' card!"

It worked. The strike off was unopposed. Old company marked as dissolved today. THANK YOU!!!!

Result!!!

I'm made up for you pal!

This just goes to show that holding your hands up and going begging to HMRC for leniency isn't always the best approach. Indeed I would maintain that it is seldom the best approach.

My advice to Up The Creek was not the kind of advice that most accountants would give. Many accountants seem to view their role - in part at least - as being an agent of HMRC in making sure that their clients obey the letter of the law.

I have no such restrictions. This enables me to give advice that, while not necessarily being entirely within the letter of the law, actually works and will result in the recipient saving themselves a lot of money - not to mention heartache.

The news from Up The Creek has delighted me and my post-golf pint of Pedigree tastes all the sweeter.