losttheplot
Registered User
- Messages
- 602
what harm could it do?
not even an increase, let alone an exponential increase in such a likelihood. the revenue use a risk-based approach to selecting audit samples and they probably wouldn't include in that sample those who have a straightforward transparent profile.
what harm could it do? I would certainly email them to put your mind at ease.
Well now I know who you are, thanks to Burgess mentioning it the other day I was referring to you in that post as the 'expert' but I didn't want to mention where I think you work. Welcome back. BTW you saw I was correct on NPPR ! Despite not being an expert myself. We had many arguments about that you and I.
Of course there is no evidence, as I and others are precluded from divulging the confidential particulars of cases we've encountered in our professional careers.Probably a case of agreeing to disagree on this one.
There is no evidence that there would be an increase in the likelihood of the OP being audited in fact there would more chance that he wouldn't be audited due to him being transparent and up front with the revenue. He his demonstrating that he has nothing to hide which is apparently the case. If I was him I would contact the revenue for own peace of mind. To not do so, due to an unfounded suspicion of being selected for an audit, is not the right thing to do here and is misguided in my opinion.
Thanks. You're correct for now, but it's going onward to the court of appeal, so you mightn't remain correct...!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?