|
|
23 Mar 2011
THE CHANCELLOR has announced that the government's tax deferral scheme Time to Pay will continue unchanged.
In 2010, HMRC rejected 5.8% of Time to Pay requests compared to 2.7% in 2009.
Further reading
Steven Law, president of insolvency trade body R3, said: "Many businesses with short-term, one off cash flow problems have benefited from the scheme and on that basis we support its continuation.
"However, with a relatively low rejection rate of 5.8% in 2010 and with some businesses repeatedly asking for Time to Pay arrangements, we are concerned that a number of zombie companies are simply using the scheme to delay the inevitable."
The scheme, which was introduced by the Labour government, was extended to continue until 2015 in last year's budget.
You may also like
Search thousands of financial jobs:
Search thousands of financial jobs:
Careers
Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles
Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you
Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you
Briefings
By looking at the reasons supplier statements became unfashionable, and the reasons why it is different today, this paper delves into the many benefits that can be obtained by automating the process.
Having a real and true view of your organisation’s current financial position, and having the right systems and processes in place, will ensure that you can make strong choices and are ready to capitalise on opportunities
AccountancyAgeInsight is a frequently updated resource centre for finance professionals, offering a free and easy-to-use digital library of briefings, white papers and other information resources. 
Visitor comments Add your comment
Didn't stop them from bailing out the banks
"However, with a relatively low rejection rate of 5.8% in 2010 and with some businesses repeatedly asking for Time to Pay arrangements, we are concerned that a number of zombie companies are simply using the scheme to delay the inevitable."
Or is one sort of zombie "too big to fail" and the other not?
One wonders. Different schemes, yes, under different administrative functions of the government, but the discrepancy in attitude to letting bad businesses fail when they're "small" and "TBTF" is amusing, if not disconcerting.
Posted by: Anthony, 29 Apr 2011 | 15:52