Tax planning - for individuals / companies covering all aspects of tax and planning
Broker planning - for those who trade their own money on markets such as Stock / Oil etc..
More news to follow once these go live
[ add comment ] ( 135 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink |
( 2.4 / 7 )I am not sure if I am missing something in these live debates, but no one has really taken on any issues that hit the tax payer and our pockets.
Our leaders are all focussed on smiling and getting the 'I am a nice guy vote'. I do hope that someone at the 3rd debate actually asks them why they feel the need to 'super' tax anyone who has invested their life to become successful.
Entrepreneurs in my opinion like the possibility of growing businesses and making decisions that benefit others. I have to say that the taxes placed on business and now high net worth individivuals makes me wonder if any of this will help us retain or push these people away from our shores.
However until I launch the UK Economics Party, run by people who are prepared to be accountible, I guess we will have to suffer the Red/Blue/Orange and Green people who get paid a lot to smile!
All smiles and no substance should have been the closing line from Sky last night
[ add comment ] ( 600 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink |
( 2.8 / 52 )The BBC television newsreader, Sian Williams, recently lost her appeal, at the First Tier Tax Tribunal. However without having sympathy for this please see a list of expense claims for hairdressing, clothing and laundry costs!!
In her 2005 tax return Ms Williams had claimed the following expenses against her BBC employment earnings:
Professional hairdo and colouring £975
Professional clothing for studio £3,231
Laundry of professional clothes £325
Although Sian Williams claimed that these were all legitimate employment expenses, as an alternative she claimed that the £3,231 spent on clothing should qualify for capital allowances. I think the wholly and exclusively rules have been overlooked here by someone!!
It was argued that Ms Williams job was akin to that of an actor in that she had to “appear” and to be “seen” on screen and should she wear the same clothes frequently whilst appearing on television she would lose her job. She said that she would be prepared to read the news naked but the BBC required her to be clothed when carrying out such a task. The clothes, it was claimed, were purchased solely for employment purposes although they could have been worn outside of work. The Tribunal considered it irrelevant that the clothing was not worn when off-duty and did not accept it a realistic possibility that she could perform her duties in the buff even if the BBC permitted such. As for the clothing being eligible for capital allowances, the Tribunal also denied such a claim as the items of clothing were not special in feature.
With regard to the cost of hairdos, even if she had to wear her hair in a particular style, hairdressing services were still something she needed as a human being and therefore not an allowable expense.
Ms Williams protested that HMRC had refused to provide information on what clothing expense claims that had been allowed for other TV presenters but the tribunal were only interested in determining the appeal in accordance with the law not by comparison to other taxpayers.
Why Sian Williams was ever persuaded to pursue this appeal is somewhat bewildering as there has been case law dating back several decades that sets our clear principles for claims for clothing. In particular, in the 1983 case of Mallalieu v Drummond, a barrister claimed for the cost of her dark Courtroom dress against her professional income. She argued that she was required to wear this in Court and would not otherwise wear such clothing in everyday life. As the wearing of clothing in Court provided warmth and normal decency, this argument proved unsuccessful.
Maybe all newsreaders will come out in protest and start to read the news in the nude
[ add comment ] ( 81 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink |
( 2.8 / 46 )A sub-contractor from Kent is the subject of a severe penalty for making a mistake on his tax return. The construction worker filed his first paper tax return in 2009 without any assistance from a professional adviser, and this appears to have been his downfall. As his turnover was below £30,000 he mistakenly believed he did not have to enter full details of his income and expenditure. Presumably, he had simply referred to the sentence that appears at the ‘Allowable business expenses’ section of the Self-Employment (short) pages that states, “If your annual turnover was below £30,000 you may just put your total expenses in box 19, rather than filling in the whole section.” The gentleman did, however, enter the CIS tax deductions that he had suffered and claimed a tax repayment of £3,000.
HMRC spotted that there had to be income for the sub-contractor to have had CIS tax deducted from it and wrote to him, opening an enquiry into the matter. It was established that the actual repayment claimed should have been £1,000. HMRC viewed the inflated repayment claim as being a ‘careless mistake’ and subsequently levied a 70% penalty on the difference between the claims of £2,000, i.e. £1,400!
The new penalty regime for inaccuracies in tax returns or other documents applies where two conditions are satisfied, namely:
1. The inaccurate document either amounts or leads to:
• An understatement of the person’s liability, or
• A false or inflated statement of a loss by the person, or
• A false or inflated claim to repayment of tax.
2. The inaccuracy was careless or deliberate.
If the conditions are satisfied then a range of penalties can be applied to the potential lost revenue, based on the behaviour of the taxpayer:
Behaviour Unprompted Disclosure Disclosure
Reasonable care No penalty No penalty
Careless 0 - 30% 15 - 30%
Deliberate 20 - 70% 35 - 70%
Deliberate and concealed 30 - 100% 50 - 100%
HMRC can suspend a penalty where conditions can be imposed which will help a person avoid penalties for careless inaccuracies in the future, which would seem appropriate here, but so far HMRC have refused to take into account that the gentleman was unrepresented.
Although the application of the new penalties is in their infancy, this penalty is disproportionate and one only hopes that HMRC will bow to commonsense.
[ add comment ] ( 30 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink |
( 3 / 48 )An Umbrella scheme's business model is reliant on its ability to pay generous travel expenses and make a profit from the provision of temporary workers but if they fail to follow correct procedures and rules for tax and employment law their entire business could be at risk.
For years these schemes have been sailing close to the wind as they use HMRC dispensations and apply them to all clients.
Maybe this year we will see the end of these schemes so that quality clients can choose quality Accountants.
[ add comment ] ( 1241 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink |
( 3 / 157 )
Random Entry
