How many punters did Ritchie’s firm have again?

In saying this David confirms something I have always suggested, which is that the competent tax adviser always knows when there is ambiguity in their advice because they have to disclose it to their client. If they do not they are professionally reckless. So, for example, running a trade as a limited company with one dominant client and taking the reward as dividends will always be tax avoidance because there is a risk that IR35 rules might apply. It may be deemed an acceptable risk to the adviser and client but there is a risk nonetheless.

Mostly Rowntree folks, wasn’t it?

11 comments on “How many punters did Ritchie’s firm have again?

  1. Running a trade of supplying professional services in such a way might risk IR35. Being in the automotive supply chain producing widgets for one make of car wouldn’t.

    I think he’s said in the past that his firm had 800-odd clients. One of my managers deals with 278 tax returns (per my current job management chart) single-handed – OK, with some help from a junior – and still has time to help out other people… that’s anything from fairly simple personal tax returns to trusts, estates, and HINWIs, and includes all the planning advice and so on too.

    Another does 197, and she’s part-time on 3.5 days a week, which works out at 281 pro rata. Oh curses, I’m going to have to start believing her when she says she has a higher workload… 🙂

  2. Other tests apply too. Did he work at their offices or at his? Did he use their computers or his own? Did they dictate the hours or did he choose his own hours? IR35 is poorly-drafted legislation: all nuance, no clear lines.

  3. So that’s 2 managers and 2 juniors doing perhaps 2/3 of the work of Murphy’s firm.

    I count myself as negative manpower, of course – most of my involvement in that side of things is to ask how they’re getting on, and whether me making sure no-one distracts them (by asking silly questions about workload, for example) would help 🙂

  4. I note that Murphy is about to start writing “the Joy of Tax”; when there was a discussion a while ago about his funding, I looked up the Rowntree Trust’s list of grants and found that he was given a grant to fund writing that book back in 2012 – he seems to have been paid £70k for it, for a couple of months’ work that hasn’t yet been started!

    Wish I had clients like that… 🙂

  5. @Pellinor

    ‘I note that Murphy is about to start writing “the Joy of Tax”; when there was a discussion a while ago about his funding, I looked up the Rowntree Trust’s list of grants and found that he was given a grant to fund writing that book back in 2012 – he seems to have been paid £70k for it, for a couple of months’ work that hasn’t yet been started!

    Wish I had clients like that…’

    Imagine Murphy’s reaction if you announced that you were writing a book about how to limit one’s tax liability, and were being paid £70,000 by the Taxpayers’ Alliance to do so.

    The man is a grotesque hypocrite, and a cretin to boot.

  6. Andrew M.:” all nuance, no clear lines” – for Ritchie that’s a feature not a bug, after all what matters is not what the law actually says, it’s what the poor fluffy dears who wrote it actually meant and obviously Ritchie is uniquely qualified to tell us that, fluffy tax bunny in chief as he be.

    Twat.

  7. Murphy isn’t fluffy at all. He’d be cheerfully rubber-stamping death warrants in a prison camp if he could.

  8. Bloke in CR:

    but of course only for ‘neoLiberals’, and those who ‘oppose civil society’, and the 1%, and UKIP supporters, and Republican voters in the US, Employees of News International, and Employees of Google, Starbucks, Amazon, and the populations of ‘secrecy jurisdictions….

    Lest we forget ‘he considers himself a libertarian’……

  9. Forget the number of punters he’s had over the years. He claims, in response to a question I posed asking him how many people he employed:

    “Right now a few.
    In my career, thousands”.

    PMSL.

  10. Murphy’s firm was 3 partners and 10 staff. In accountancy terms that is tiny. He continually shows he’s never engaged in any complex tax planning ( he was bewildered at the thought that a husband and wife might transfer assets inter-spouse just before selling them).

    And once again his comments above about a one-man company are utter cock. I’d tell him about the MDF Design Services IR35 case which showed that it is perfectly possible to have one man company with one client and still be miles inside the IR35 rules. Of course, he’d then scurry off, look it up and come back with some shit . Of course as I’m banned from his site I can’t tell him. Could someone else do the honours?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.