[AuRavelling79]

That will be because he will have been found to be fraudulent in the eyes of HMRC - nothing to do with his lack of records beyond year 5.

But if you don’t keep them past 5 years then you cannot defend yourself or prove your innocence if you get an investigation as you wouldn’t have any paperwork , legally you have to keep it 5 years for your own piece of mind it’s worth keeping the much longer

You'd only get an investigation where they pore over records that far back if you had other reasons to be on the radar.

I know a chap who got done for £20,000 when it was seven years. They only went back that far.

If they had found his Caribbean island claimed as a garden office they aren't going to worry about whether the £10 spent on petrol for his wife's car was a business expense or not in 2006.

 

[Splash and dash]

That will be because he will have been found to be fraudulent in the eyes of HMRC - nothing to do with his lack of records beyond year 5.

But if you don’t keep them past 5 years then you cannot defend yourself or prove your innocence if you get an investigation as you wouldn’t have any paperwork , legally you have to keep it 5 years for your own piece of mind it’s worth keeping the much longer

You'd only get an investigation where they pore over records that far back if you had other reasons to be on the radar.

I know a chap who got done for £20,000 when it was seven years. They only went back that far.

If they had found his Caribbean island claimed as a garden office they aren't going to worry about whether the £10 spent on petrol for his wife's car was a business expense or not in 2006.

 

Sorry but that’s not true if you get an investigation they usually will go back way beyond 5 years as they hope to claw back as much money as possible to make the investigation worth while and there reasoning is that what ever the discrepancy that you have been doing it for many years , was only talking to my accountant about this a few weeks ago and he said they go back through everything for up to 20 years on all the cases he’s been involved with and only one case ended up with back dated tax , the reason ones were able to refute HMRC figures was due to having kept records way beyond what you legally need to do . He tells all his clients to keep records for 20 years just in case they might ever be needed .

[cgh window cleaning]

Online banking has been around long enough now to act as a record especially with business accounts.
Like @Stoots said most receipts fade after 5 years and become unreadable..
Your bank purchases and money in and out providing it tally’s up should provide enough proof especially if you’re above board anyway.

The tax man isn’t going after the average straight goer on the hope of clawing back a couple of grand.

They want the people declaring £12500 grand sitting in £700k houses with a new Range Rover on the drive basically those whose lifestyle does not match the returns they are submitting.

[dazmond]

Online banking has been around long enough now to act as a record especially with business accounts.
Like @Stoots said most receipts fade after 5 years and become unreadable..
Your bank purchases and money in and out providing it tally’s up should provide enough proof especially if you’re above board anyway.

The tax man isn’t going after the average straight goer on the hope of clawing back a couple of grand.

They want the people declaring £12500 grand sitting in £700k houses with a new Range Rover on the drive basically those whose lifestyle does not match the returns they are submitting.

Their not though....HMRC are going after the average joe ....

I know a customer who's friend got audited  and she's a dog walker FFS!🙄

[cgh window cleaning]

Online banking has been around long enough now to act as a record especially with business accounts.
Like @Stoots said most receipts fade after 5 years and become unreadable..
Your bank purchases and money in and out providing it tally’s up should provide enough proof especially if you’re above board anyway.

The tax man isn’t going after the average straight goer on the hope of clawing back a couple of grand.

They want the people declaring £12500 grand sitting in £700k houses with a new Range Rover on the drive basically those whose lifestyle does not match the returns they are submitting.

Their not though....HMRC are going after the average joe ....

I know a customer who's friend got audited  and she's a dog walker FFS!🙄

Dog walkers are more than likely still very cash heavy the chances are she’s showing very little on a tax return.There will always be reason for them to start an investigation.
There probably looking into cash heavy industries

[AuRavelling79]

They just look for cheats.

If you aren't cheating you don't need to worry.

They have algorithms largely on expenditure.

If I buy a property or a holiday home and have been declaring 20k a year and claiming benefits they will want to know why.

They will look at the year you bought the property and ask where the income came from.

They will look at your bank accounts.

They aren't worried if you have a receipt for a van MOT twenty years ago. They will just say 'you declared an average of 20k over ten years - how come you have bought XYZ big ticket items in year 7, 12  and 20?'

[Splash and dash]

They just look for cheats.

If you aren't cheating you don't need to worry.

They have algorithms largely on expenditure.

If I buy a property or a holiday home and have been declaring 20k a year and claiming benefits they will want to know why.

They will look at the year you bought the property and ask where the income came from.

They will look at your bank accounts.

They aren't worried if you have a receipt for a van MOT twenty years ago. They will just say 'you declared an average of 20k over ten years - how come you have bought XYZ big ticket items in year 7, 12  and 20?'

Again you are very naive if you think that’s how an investigation is carried out , I know several that have had investigations and only one was found at fault , they don’t need to see the original receipt for £ 20 of diesel but if you don’t have your records you can’t show what your expenses were and fight your corner .

[KS Cleaning]

They just look for cheats.

If you aren't cheating you don't need to worry.

They have algorithms largely on expenditure.

If I buy a property or a holiday home and have been declaring 20k a year and claiming benefits they will want to know why.

They will look at the year you bought the property and ask where the income came from.

They will look at your bank accounts.

They aren't worried if you have a receipt for a van MOT twenty years ago. They will just say 'you declared an average of 20k over ten years - how come you have bought XYZ big ticket items in year 7, 12  and 20?'

Again you are very naive if you think that’s how an investigation is carried out , I know several that have had investigations and only one was found at fault , they don’t need to see the original receipt for £ 20 of diesel but if you don’t have your records you can’t show what your expenses were and fight your corner .

Well in that case the investigator should be getting investigated for numerous failed investigations🕵️‍♂️

[Splash and dash]

They just look for cheats.

If you aren't cheating you don't need to worry.

They have algorithms largely on expenditure.

If I buy a property or a holiday home and have been declaring 20k a year and claiming benefits they will want to know why.

They will look at the year you bought the property and ask where the income came from.

They will look at your bank accounts.

They aren't worried if you have a receipt for a van MOT twenty years ago. They will just say 'you declared an average of 20k over ten years - how come you have bought XYZ big ticket items in year 7, 12  and 20?'

Again you are very naive if you think that’s how an investigation is carried out , I know several that have had investigations and only one was found at fault , they don’t need to see the original receipt for £ 20 of diesel but if you don’t have your records you can’t show what your expenses were and fight your corner .

Well in that case the investigator should be getting investigated for numerous failed investigations🕵️‍♂️

Fewer than 1% of investigations lead to prosecution according to HMRC  own records