Tag Archive | "treasury"

Will Self-Employed NICs be Tories Get Out Of Jail Free Card?


So, the Conservative Party swept into power while two thirds of the UK wasn’t looking. But was their promise to freeze income tax, VAT and national insurance the clincher? Or was it the promise of a referendum on EU that Mr Cameron promised (knowing full well we’ll vote to stay in) that bought the keys to Number 10?

In a post like this, I’d be tempted to say, “Well, it doesn’t matter, now. The Tories are in and that’s that.”

The problem is, that isn’t that. At least not as far as taxation goes.

Vultures are waiting for the first sign of a hike in tax

Already, all eyes are waiting for the first sign of a tax increase. The market was truly shocked by the pre-election tax-freeze promise, given how tentative economic recovery is.

Mr Cameron must be as confident in the UK recovery as he was of his continued tenure in Downing Street. He was, after all, the first Prime Minister in an age not to have a bag packed ready to vacate No 10 had things gone horribly wrong last Thursday.

And they could have. Just ask Messrs Farage, Clegg and Miliband (not to mention Balls and Cable) how quickly the political tide can change.

An article in today’s Financial Times hinted at several ways the new government could sneak tax increases in on the blind side. At least in a way that won’t have the electorate calling for Mr Osborne’s head.

The Conservative Party has, as the FT says, “boxed itself in” with the taxes that the average working man pays. They’re frozen for the full term of the next government; any move to the contrary could be political suicide.

But that’s the key: the average working man. At the beginning of this government, there are a lot more unaverage working men and women than ever before.

Are contractors a victim of their own success?

Self-employment has propped up employment figures during the recovery. While growth may have slowed in comparison, freelancers and contractors continue to set up shop for themselves in droves. And this is one of the areas the Treasury could exploit.

Anyone operating through a limited company draws low salary and dividends. It’s an age-old tax planning measure that, when done correctly, offers a considerable (compliant) saving.

The Conservatives may well look at eliminating this ‘preferential treatment’, as the FT puts it. They wouldn’t be increasing NICs, per se. Just making less of it available as tax relief for limited company directors.

Other taxing conundrums for contractors (and their accountants!)

In addition, we already know that certain benefits for umbrella contractors are in jeopardy. There’s still plenty of discussion ahead, as promised. But the 2016 end date of travel and other expenses for ‘managed employees’ looks more certain than ever.

The Tories have given themselves very little room to manoeuvre on tax. As such, the crackdown on evasion and aggressive avoidance will go further than a few expenses.

Couple this with those earning in excess of £150k about to cop for a rise in pension tax and contractors could soon need all the help from their accountants that they can get. Moreso now than ever.

And they say that the Conservatives are the party of free enterprise? Ironic, then, that the freeze on tax for the working man may see entrepreneurs footing the bill.

Posted in contractor expenses, newsComments (0)

HMRC predicts tax avoidance crackdown to create massive row


The Government’s new tax avoidance crackdown will be going into effect next month, and Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs is preparing for a massive siege.

How is HMRC and the Treasury preparing, do you ask? Well first of all there are shedloads of new judges being recruited even as we speak in order to handle what’s most likely to be a record-breaking workload once these new regulations go into effect. The Government is investing some £7 billion into what it feels is a very serious problem, so the big guns are absolutely coming out.

And these big guns are going to be targeting more or less anyone who uses any sort of tax avoidance scheme that’s deemed ‘aggressive and contrived.’ It doesn’t matter if you’re a multinational company the size and breadth of a major online retail chain (are you listening, Amazon?) or simply a contractor who works out of your own garage – if you’re caught using any of these tax avoidance schemes, HMRC is going to very politely ask you to pay up what you might owe up front instead of having to wait for the results of an investigation.

Now I’m all for squeezing tax cheats until they bleed – and I also know how sneaky these big companies can be with ferreting their money away from the ‘grasping’ hands of the Treasury – but a rule like this is kind of questionable because this is going to effect everyone and not just large firms with deep pockets. Whilst a small contractor might not owe nearly the same amount as a multinational if he or she is suspected of using a tax avoidance scheme, the financial impact of having to pay the difference up front will be able to be absorbed by a big company but not nearly as easily for a self-employed freelancer or the like. I certainly hope that when these new regulations are unveiled there will be some exceptions made for just such an occurrence – otherwise the zeal in which the Treasury seeks to line its pockets is going to do more potential harm than good, despite whatever original impetus was behind the new arrangements.

Posted in newsComments (0)

Treasury secretary issues warning against tax avoidance


Chief secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander has stopped mincing words when it comes to how the taxman is going to treat anyone trying to weasel out of tax.

Decisive action will be taken against any who try to bypass paying the proper amount in tax, Mr Alexander said in a recent conference speech. In fact, the chief secretary went so far as to single out any contractors who work for the public sector, putting them on notice that Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs will not take any sort of tax avoidance schemes lying down.

Mr Alexander had nothing but praise for how HMRC has been dealing with tax avoidance issues as of late. However, he was quick to add that further measures would be taken against anyone with the nerve to continue short-changing the Treasury, even after multiple warnings have been given out time and again over the past few months.

The entire tax avoidance issue was blown wide open this past summer after it was revealed that Student Loans Company head, Ed Lester, had been paying less in national insurance and tax because he was working on behalf of a bogus limited company. Doing so allowed him to minimise his tax liabilities – at least until it was discovered and the scheme was shut down, leading to Mr Alexander putting the rest of the public sector’s contractors on notice for engaging in similar practices, which could likewise allow them to get away with not paying their fair share of tax.

Posted in newsComments (0)

HMRC – the single biggest inhibitor to the recovery I can think of


January, and the vexed question of self-assessment rears its head again. My accountant friends have said good bye to the family until February and closeted themselves with quill pens and envelopes of receipts. Others have burned the midnight oil trying to complete their online returns. Still others – like me for example – pay the bill to the accountant, send off a small corrective payment to HMRC and wonder what all the fuss is about.

In my case that cheque is for precisely eighty pence. Can’t pay that online so a cheque it will have to be. Which will cost the drones in HMRC around £30 to process but basic economics was never really their strong point. And it’s only outstanding in the first place because last year I ignored a similarly trivial underpayment and this year got rightly stung for the interest.

Meanwhile, away from the distractions of the self-assessment merry-go-round, a rather more invidious tax change has crept in, largely unannounced and unremarked. As of now, there is a limit on how much cash you can take out when closing your company under the provisions of Extra-Statutory Concession 16 of just £25,000. Anything over that attracts Capital Gains tax at the relevant rate. Great. More taxes you never knew you owed.

There is a way around it; you simply have to liquidate your company. That means using the services of a liquidator who, incidentally, can’t be your current accountant. And it seems that such a service comes in at around seven grand a pop. Until, that is, Liquidators-R-Us get up and running and the cost comes down, so defeating the whole purpose.

But if you think about it, if the idea is to increase the CGT take from closing companies, why leave the Liquidation loophole in the first place? Joined-up thinking? Not at all, merely another excuse to get taxes imposed by relying on people not knowing the detail.

But what really irritates me about this is the underlying assumption by HMRC that a company’s sole purpose is to grow into an eternal corporate body and any that don’t are not to be taken seriously. There is no acceptance or understanding that if you are working in a world where income is variable and frequently non-existent, using a company to store and distribute your income evenly across the year is the best way to do it. And when you finally stop grinding away at the coal face you want to get your money back as efficiently as you can while paying whatever levies are due to the Treasury, not to some pointless corporate leech.

It’s exactly the same mindset that got us IR35 in the first place. We have companies. We don’t have 300 employees and a pile of plant and machinery so we must be cheating the taxman, else why have the company? Well there’s S44-47 for one thing and the idiot tax liability transfer rules it embodies. But hey, that’s no excuse.

I have to conclude that the increasingly rapacious predations of HMRC are the single biggest inhibitor to the recovery we can think of. It’s all very well the Government saying we need a vibrant and flexible workforce, and we’d love to give them one, but getting constantly cut off at the knees by a body that has absolutely no experience or expertise in the real world is getting more than a little wearing.

And finally it’s the next meeting of the infamous IR35 Forum soon. There is a hope that they will come up with a final answer to the IR35 question. Personally, I’m not hopeful. Can’t imagine why…

About the author: Alan Watts

Alan has worked in IT for most of the last 35 years, and first went freelance in 1996. He has been a PCG member from its start and has been spreading the message that freelancing is a professional career choice for many years. Alan also runs Malvolio’s Blog, a personal but highly informative take on the life of the modern freelance.

Alan Watts, Principal Consultant, LPW Computer Services

© 2012 All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Image: Clueless BUB by Birdies100

Posted in alan's blogComments (0)

Figures on IR35 DO exist. So who’s kidding who?


As well as being technically proficient, independently minded and a bit intolerant of rigid work patterns, we’re also a tolerant bunch, us contractors. You kind of get used to having to dig out the truth from the often intentional obfuscation you get from the agencies, the client, the civil service and a host of other places. And you get to recognise some universal truths.

“Cyclists can ride safely on footpaths”. Yeah right…

“All contractors are very well paid”. Well we aren’t exactly running on empty, but we are usually pretty good at what we do, and command a decent rate accordingly. But the average rate for IT contractors as a whole is around £40 a hour these days,which is near as damn it the same net take home as a permanent employee on £40,000 a year; good but not exceptional.

“We require you to opt out of the Agency Regulations”. No you don’t. For one thing it’s nothing to do with you, Mr Agent. It’s not my problem if you’ve agreed a contract with the client that is incompatible with the requirements of an Opted-In contract for me. Since 95% of all Opt Outs aren’t legally correct, from what I’ve seen, why not work on the assumption that everyone is opted in? Ah, of course, then you wouldn’t be able to claim that the workers you supply are your own dedicated resources, would you?

“Opting In is highly beneficial”. Well, is it? The two key gains are guaranteed payment and a time limit on handcuff clauses. The former may have a superficial appeal, but if the agency’s not got any money they aren’t going to pay you anyway. The latter looks nice, but there will be the upper contract between agency and client that almost certainly stops them taking you on for at least as long as the period in your own contract. So where’s the handcuff limitation protection then?

“Retain 85% of your gross with our compliant solution”. Yeah, right. You do until the scheme gets legislated out of existence, the scheme owners do a runner or you discover the scheme doesn’t actually work in the first place. Then again Hector has recently given up trying to shut down some of these schemes because they can’t safely separate out those who should genuinely use them, like pension funds, and those who are taking advantage. Although that won’t stop them trying.

“We need to retain IR35”. Ah, now, hang on a minute. That was Osborne’s position in the last budget, when for a while we thought we had proven that IR35 was not only damaging and spiteful, it wasn’t actually earning any money for HMRC. The case was slightly hampered by the repeated assertion that there are no figures specifically covering IR35 within the ledgers of the Treasury. So we kind of accepted Osborne’s assertion that he needed it to dissuade Friday-to-Monday converts. (This despite one of the more obvious cases being Mr Hartnett, ex permanent Head of HMRC, now freelance Acting Head of HMRC. Didn’t even have to empty his waste bin). And the implicit assertion that since he wasn’t keeping any measure that wasn’t cost-effective, then IR35 was paying its way.

Then, all of a sudden, PCG gets a very interesting answer to an FIO request. It seems those figures do exist. What’s more, they are pretty damning: total case prosecuted over the last five years? Three hundred and twenty two. That’s slightly over one a week. Total revenue gained as a result? Five million, four hundred and forty two thousand, two hundred and ninety nine pounds. A shade over a million a year. Or just under seventeen thousand per case, assuming all were successful, which they almost certainly weren’t. Doesn’t exactly go very far against the one trillion government shortfall, does it…

Ok, so this is interesting. We have been told more than once that no figures on IR35 were being kept. You can even find that in Hansard. Now, suddenly, they have been. Most odd. So who’s kidding who, Mr Osborne?

And who in the previous administration was responsible for the earlier statements. I think we need to be told.

About the author: Alan Watts

Alan has worked in IT for most of the last 35 years, and first went freelance in 1996. He has been a PCG member from its start and has been spreading the message that freelancing is a professional career choice for many years. Alan also runs Malvolio’s Blog, a personal but highly informative take on the life of the modern freelance.

Alan Watts, Principal Consultant, LPW Computer Services

© 2011 All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Image: Urban Art by freeflyer09

Posted in alan's blogComments (0)

Is the new statutory residency test really straightforward?


Non-domicile clients of contractor accountants might know that their tax status has been causing confusion over recent years and the government has now announced its plan to make the system simpler to understand.

According to the Treasury, the current rules surrounding residency are complicated, vague and subjective so it is going to introduce a straightforward statutory residence test.

The framework for the STR test will take into consideration the length of time spent in the UK as well as other connections to the country. It also lays down a distinction between ‘arrivers’, people who have not been resident in the past three years, and ‘leavers’ who were resident during at least one of the past three tax years.

Non-residents will be people who spend less than 10 days per year in the UK, or work abroad full time. Anyone who has been classed as a non-resident for the past three tax years will continue to be classed as such providing they spend less than 45 days in this country during the current tax year.

A definite resident is somebody who spends more than 183 days per year in this country or whose only home is situated in the UK.

Obviously a large number of people will not fall into either of the above categories and their status will be decided based on four factors. These are: having a family resident in this country, substantive UK employment, accommodation they can access in the UK and whether they have spent 90 days or more in Britain in either of the preceding two tax years.

To complicate matters slightly, the amount of factors taken into consideration will depend on the length of time people spend in this country in the current tax year.

PwC’s international mobility partner, Sean Drury, says the 10 day rule is extremely restrictive and says clear exemptions are needed for thinks like visiting ageing or sick family members.

A tax expert from PKF warned that the complicated connection factors sounded like a recipe for disaster and he predicted court cases would ensue to determine the precise workings.

© 2011 All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Image: You look confused and you dont know what to do by Alex Bellink

Posted in newsComments (0)

Cheque guarantee cards are on their way out


A large number of us still rely on cheques but are you aware that the cheque guarantee card scheme is about to be phased out?

According to research from WorldPay, 42% of UK small businesses and start-ups use cheques for day-to-day payments and 76% of them did not realise that as from June this year the cheque guarantee card scheme will be phased out. In fact talks are under way to phase out cheques completely by 2018, a fact that 45% of small enterprises were unaware of.

62% of businesses have not yet planned how they will make payments when cheques disappear and 29% expect to continue writing cheques for the next few years.

Businesses were asked about the potential advantages of accepting card payments instead of cheques and 61% said transaction times were faster and they would save time and money by not having to manually bank cheques. 32% of business owners said a major motivation to replacing cheque payments with cards was increased safety.

Meanwhile, the Treasury Select Committee is reopening an inquiry into phasing out cheques after MPs claim to have been inundated with letters from members of the general public who routinely use them.

In 1990, around 11 million cheques were written every day. By 2009 that figure had dropped to 4 million. However, many older people are reluctant to use online banking and still write cheques to cover monthly bills.

Age UK says it is unacceptable to scrap cheques without finding a suitable replacement. People who are unable to leave the house rely on cheques as a safe and secure method of settling their liabilities. If that option is taken away, vulnerable older people might have to give their cash card and PIN to other others, which is against all the advice given by banks.

The inquiry will remain open until May 6th and written evidence can be submitted to the Treasury Committee, at 7 Millbank, House of Commons, London SW1P 3JA.

© 2010 All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Image: chair by evanbrennan|photo

Posted in newsComments (0)

“The hardest thing in the world…


… to understand is the income tax”. So said no less a person than Albert Einstein. Meanwhile the Coalition, in the shape of Treasury Minister Danny Alexander, have been talking about ways to increase the amount of tax flowing into the Government’s coffers.

I think most thinking people agree we need to close the gap between UK income and UK expenditure and you can only go so far in cutting down what you spend. Unless you’re a bank of course, but that’s another subject.

The only snag is, Mr Alexander was using the same old rhetoric we were really tired of hearing from the last lot: His speech was littered with references to “avoidance and evasion”. He also went on a little bit too much about “fairness” – and we all know what that means! OK he was talking at the Lib Dem conference so we might forgive a degree of tub-thumping overstatement, but his words carry a hint of his true intent.

Personally I find this very worrying. Firstly there is a very clear difference between avoidance and evasion: one is legal and one isn’t. If you want to stop avoidance, the answer is very simple; you cancel that concession or you pass a law saying that you can’t do things that way. If, for example, it is avoidance to take advantage of the tax free allowance we all get – which it is, of course – then you cancel the tax free allowance. How hard is that?

Of course there is the slight problem that an already complicated tax regime, after years of Brown-induced fiddling, is now so labyrinthine that nobody really knows what taxes they owe. Including HMRC themselves, if the various stories of under- and over-payments and the odd billion pounds of uncollected taxes are to be believed.

Secondly, if someone can define “fairness” when applied to taxation, then I would be very surprised. Danny boy’s concept – like a certain Miss Primarola’s – is basically to ensure everyone whose gross income is £50,000 pays £10,000 in taxes. Simple enough idea, but is it fair? I don’t think so. A freelancer’s gross has to cover a host of things that an employee’s doesn’t. A company owner’s gross has to cover off building the business and quite possibly tying money up for years to do so. Fairness is a good word, but it’s not one that you can apply to taxation.

You can of course arrange things so that while you may pay differing amounts against your £50,000 you at least know in advance how much it is going to be and why. What we need is someone to look long and hard at simplifying the tax system. An Office of Tax Simplification, if you like. Oh, hang on a minute…

Nevertheless, HMG need all the income they can find, and even an old cynic like me can see that if you live in the UK, work in the UK and get paid in the UK, you should be paying taxes at UK levels. Are you listening Mr Green? Just because your company pays lots of taxes against its profits doesn’t exempt you from paying taxes on the money you take out if it for your own use. Sorry, for your wife’s use.

Still, getting back to the point, HMG doesn’t need to tackle evasion, it’s already illegal. All they need to do is apply the law consistently. If they want to tackle avoidance, all they have to do is define what it is and which practices they consider to be unacceptable. The various avoidance schemes that are their real target all exist by virtue of ambiguity in the wording of the tax laws. It’s down to HMG to remove that ambiguity so those schemes become unworkable or unprofitable..

That, to my mind, is what the fairness argument should be about.

Alan Watts can found at LinkedIn.
© 2010 All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Image: Scattered puzzle pieces next to solved fragment by Horia Varlan

Posted in alan's blogComments (0)

Spending cuts hit the Treasury


The Treasury is set to lose around 25% of its workforce due to the Chancellor’s spending cuts.

The good news for the existing Treasury workforce is that this will be achieved by natural wastage with no further recruitment, as opposed to mass redundancies.

By the middle of this month, George Osborne will have settled the budgets for some of the government departments, including culture, environment, justice and transport, as well as scaling back the role his own department and the financial services function play. He’s even proposing to move staff to smaller desks in order to squeeze more people into his HQ thus saving money on rent.

Over the next four years the Treasury department will lose about 350 staff members through natural attrition bringing the number down to 1,000.

The Chancellor’s willingness to impose cuts in his own department should strengthen his hand when it comes to negotiating with other departments.

One of George Osborne’s colleagues said they would be focusing on macro analysis and spending control rather than attempting to second guess the moves of other departments.

The comprehensive spending review will cut between 25% and 40% from the majority of other government departments. The biggest challenges facing the Chancellor will be defence and welfare. Transport could also be a problem as Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, is battling with Philip Hammond, the Transport Secretary over Crossrail and upgrades to the Tube. Hammond also wants to see a cut in the £1 billion that subsidises free travel for children, the unemployed and injured war veterans.

Meanwhile, a treasury spokesman said the department would not get drawn into the spending review negotiations of individual departments; each of which have been told to reduce their admin costs by about a third over the next four years.

© 2010 All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Image: slash by TheTruthAbout…

Posted in newsComments (0)

Calls for the simplification of contractor pensions


Hargreaves Lansdown, the FTSE 250 investment company, partially backs the coalition’s proposals to change tax relief on pensions but suggests that further adjustments could make the system simpler.

Reducing the annual allowance to about £40,000 and reinstating marginal rate tax relief were definitely a lot better than Labour’s idea of restricting tax relief to high earners.

However, by restricting 50% tax payers to pension tax relief of just 40%, the coalition risks undermining the positive impact of the reform. Hargreaves Lansdown suggests that it would be a better idea to have a lower annual allowance but with full marginal rate tax relief. On average, individuals only contribute about £2,020 a year to their personal pension so an annual allowance of £35,000 for example is still more than enough for the majority of investors.

The Association of British Insurers says that the allowance should not fall below £35,000. Earlier this year the Treasury launched a consultation on tax relief for pension contributions. The ABI argued that the allowance should be £45,000, i.e. the top of the Treasury’s suggested range.

The ACCA is concerned that the changes will do more harm than good. The Assocaition would like to see a low allowance for people who are just starting their first job and a larger allowance for people aged over 50.

The secret to success here must be simplicity or else the government runs the risk of investor confusion. It has already been revealed recently that the majority of people nearing retirement age are not financially prepared for the consequences of retirement and any changes to the current pensions regime must be simple for the investor to understand and the taxman to implement.

© 2010 All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Image: the c(o)urse of life by ‘PixelPlacebo’

Posted in newsComments (0)

Will regulation changes affect online accountants?


Contractor accountants might be interested to hear that the government is planning to merge the Financial Reporting Council and the Financial Services Authority to form a companies commission like the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States.

On Monday the Treasury published the proposal which forms part of their plan to reform UK financial regulation. The paper entitled ‘A new approach to financial regulation’ said that the government believes there is a strong case for merging the two bodies to create a new regulator with responsibility for the stewardship of primary market activity, audit, company reporting and corporate governance. The new regulator would become the responsibility of Vince Cable, the business secretary.

The document points out that currently there is no one institution that has the authority, responsibility or powers to monitor the entire system and respond to potentially destabilising trends. This failing became obvious during the recent financial crisis. The regulators didn’t fully identify the underlying problems that caused the credit crunch and once the first signs of trouble became apparent they were unable to cope.

At present, the FSA’s remit is to monitor and regulate global investment banks and small local financial advisers. The Bank of England is responsible for financial stability, although it has no tools to enforce it, and the Treasury is tasked with maintaining the legal and institutional framework.

The coalition plans to set up a Financial Policy Committee which will be housed in the Bank of England and will ensure the UK’s financial stability. The FPC will receive macro-prudential tools to enable it to deal with systemic risks to financial stability.

The government also proposes to set up a new consumer protection and markets authority which will look out for the interests of consumers and promote confidence in financial markets and services.

© 2010 All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Image: Four colors by Tambako the Jaguar

Posted in newsComments (0)

Corporation tax cut to be introduced slowly


The proposed cuts in corporation tax could be staggered over the next five years suggests Lord Sassoon, the commercial secretary to the Treasury.

The government is committed to lower and simpler taxes and as part of this plan they intend to reduce corporation tax to 25% from the current 28%.

Lord Sassoon said that George Osborne would be setting out a roadmap for tax reform when he presents his emergency budget on 22 June. This will include the coalition’s plan to make our rate of corporation tax for limited company contractors the most competitive amongst the G20 countries.

Reducing the corporation tax rate by 3% would cost £4.5bn per year, but at least some of this could be recouped by tackling tax evasion and repealing tax relief schemes.

There are concerns however that this competitiveness may not extend to the banks. The chairman of Lloyd’s of London, Lord Levene, says that the coalition should be focusing on rebuilding the economy, and that will involve supporting the City. He is worried that re-balancing’ the economy is in reality a secret code meaning shrink the financial services sector.

Lord Levene is openly critical of George Osborne’s plans to impose a levy on banks. He highlighted the fact 44 of the 53 businesses that operate in the Lloyds insurance market are not domiciled in the UK and urged ministers not to attack the city in order to support manufacturing.

© 2010 All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Image: Tattooed snails 5/33 and 6/33 by {JooJoo}

Posted in newsComments (0)


  • Switch Accountants for FREE

    Switch Accountants for FREEAt K&B Accountancy Group we have introduced a simple and straightforward approach to changing accountants. We’re offering contractors, consultants and freelancers the opportunity to switch to K&B Accountancy Group for FREE without the need to pay for any ‘catch up’ or retrospective accountancy fees for the previous year’s accounts and corporation tax return* *T&Cs apply

our top 5 twitter posts

twitter

contractor accountants

contractoraccts



twitter Join the conversation
Free Telephone Advice