Is this FHL 2 separate trades?

Gets extra income from photo shoots

Didn't find your answer?

A client started letting her holiday home commercially in Jan 16. It has already clocked up the requisite 105 days to qualify as a Furnished Holiday Let. It also earns income from photo shoots. This is not holiday letting (even if the TV crews sometimes stay overnight) and started in late 2015 so some of it pre-dates the FHL.

Should the photo shoot income be bracketed with the FHL income or should it be treated as a separate trade subject to Class 4 NI (although below the limit for 2015/16 anyway)? I think the latter but it's the first time I've come across a dual-trade FHL so thought I'd better check.

In other words, once a property qualifies as an FHL, does all income arising during the tax year for that property get treated as FHL income or should I be accounting for it as 2 separate trades?

Replies (39)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Norma Stitz
15th Sep 2016 13:34

I don't understand. Are you saying that the house, as well as being rented out, is also a fashion model?

Surely it is either let on a commercial basis with the lessee being entitled to also use furniture in the accommodation or it isn't.

What the lessee does with the property is up to them. It is qualifying holiday accommodation if it is available to let for 210 days, is so let for 105 days (excluding periods in excess of 31 days). There is no requirement that the lessee actually be on holiday.

There are no trades. It is property income that is deemed to be a trade.

A straight application of the legislation is all that is required.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Norma Stitz:
By cfield
15th Sep 2016 14:04

No, the house itself is not a fashion model, but it does have fashion models in it during photo shoots, which obviously take place between lettings. It's just a 2nd income stream. Nothing to do with the holiday business.

Thanks (1)
Replying to cfield:
By The Highlander
15th Sep 2016 14:22

I think the point Portia, I mean Norma Stitz, is making is that what the customers choose to use the property for is incidental, the key issue is that they are renting a furnished holiday property. Whether it be for an hour, day or week the fundamental remains true.

Thanks (1)
By The Highlander
15th Sep 2016 14:25

Is it Norma Stitz or Ms E. Norma Stitz?

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Norma Stitz
15th Sep 2016 14:30

Norma's points - there are two of them - is that furnished holiday lettings have nothing necessarily to do with holidays. The legislation does not require that the lessor use the furnished accommodation for holidaying in.

All that is required is that the property be let on a commercial basis - to either a holidaymaker or photographic company - for no longer than 31 days in a continuous period, with them having the right to use furniture, and the aggregate period for which it is 105+ days, with it being available for such letting for 210 plus days.

Both the holiday and the photo shoot are crimson kippers. You have letting income, which appears, in the case of either type of lessor, to count towards your 105 days.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Norma Stitz:
By cfield
15th Sep 2016 16:38

Yes, I didn't want to mention itself myself, but it was a very PNL like post. You can spot them a mile off, no matter was the pseudonym is. I think it's that ever so slightly irritated air.

Highlander, it is not the guest who is using the house for photo shoots, it is the landlord between lettings. I don't think landlords normally allow their tenants to have film crews stomping all over their property.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the property had to be let for a non-commercial reason by the guest (a holiday in practice although not an absolute requirement as who is to say what a holiday is) in order for it to count towards the 105 days.

I would have thought the guest had to stay overnight too for it to be accommodation, otherwise a brothel would qualify, although again this may not stated in black and white. It might be one of those common sense things.

I wouldn't have thought the film crews were allowed to use the beds or the bath tub unless they are actually staying overnight, although no doubt they are permitted to sit on the chairs and make a cup of tea. I must confess, I didn't think to ask about this. A pertinent point.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Norma Stitz
15th Sep 2016 17:02

So only now do we discover that the individual has a self-employment as a film producer, in which she just happens to make use of his FHL property. The income does not arise from use of the property, as such; it arises from her being a film producer (and just happening to use the property for the purpose). They shoot horses you know.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Norma Stitz:
By cfield
15th Sep 2016 17:21

But I told you all this right at the start. You just didn't read the question properly. No, the client is not a film producer. She merely lets her house out to film producers during void periods as the setting for photo shoots, although they don't usually stay overnight.

Got it now?

Where's my gun!

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Norma Stitz
15th Sep 2016 17:40

Sweet cheeses! So this was complete b*llocks:

cfield wrote:

Highlander, it is not the guest who is using the house for photo shoots, it is the landlord between lettings. I don't think landlords normally allow their tenants to have film crews stomping all over their property.

So your client is letting the property either to holidaymakers or to film producers.

For the hard of understanding, what I originally said was that what the person that the property is let to does with the property is completely frigging irrelevant.

If it is let on a commercial basis and the person to whom it is let has the use of furniture (ie they can sit on chairs and [***]), and they do not have use of it for more than 31 days, then, whether they use it for holidaymaking, make a [***] film or grow marijuana in there, it counts towards the 105 days required for it to qualify as an FHL.

Whatever they do with it it is property income, from one property, which is either taxable as property income or is taxed as trading income (of one trade) if the FHL requirements are met.

I could not care less what you have read "somewhere". Why not just read the frigging legislation.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Norma Stitz:
By cfield
15th Sep 2016 18:48

You appear to have gone from mere "mild irritation" to a full-blown hissy fit. Careful or you'll be getting yourself banned again, under yet another pseudonym.

I'll admit that sentence you quoted gave totally the wrong impression, but what I was trying to say was that the landlord allows the house to be used for photo shoots and lets it on that basis. It is not a normal holiday letting where the guest suddenly thinks "I know, let's do a photo shoot today".

OK, so let's go by the legislation. ITTOIA 2005 section 323(3) paragraph (a) says "the person entitled to use the accommodation must also be entitled, in connection with that use, to the use of the furniture". As I've already mentioned, it is highly unlikely the film crews would be allowed to run a bath or sleep in the beds unless they're staying overnight, in which case that part of it would be a normal booking.

Now let's look at paragraph b of 323(3). It says it must be "qualifying holiday accommodation". For the meaning of that, we must refer to section 325. Paragraphs 2 and 3 (the availability and letting conditions) are the key ones. They both refer to "holiday accommodation".

Neither word is defined so we must go by the dictionary meaning. As I said, a holiday means different things to different people, but I think we can assume it must be a period of leisure, not commercial activity. The film crews are only there because it is their job or trade. They are not in any way, shape or form taking a holiday. So I have to differ with you on your last post. It does indeed make a difference why they are there.

As for accommodation, The Oxford English Dictionary defines this as a room, group of rooms or building in which someone may live or stay. Even if you go by the word "stay" it has an element of continuity about it. I don't think a few hours filming before they all go home cuts the mustard. In this context, I'd say an at least one overnight stay is required.

And by the way, "somewhere" means Taxation Magazine or an article of similar standing, not the written equivalent of the man down the pub.

Thanks (1)
By cheekychappy
15th Sep 2016 19:18

What a peculiar way of showing appreciation to those trying to help you.

Chris, if I sell a condom, I don't care if Big John uses it to ram his missus, or whether he uses it to pack explosives for underwater exploration.

Portia, I mean enormous [***], is correct.

Thanks (1)
Replying to cheekychappy:
By cfield
15th Sep 2016 19:49

I can do without that sort of help. Still, at least it gives me a frisson of life in a normal office, just in case wild horses ever tempt me to become a wage slave again. I knew there was some reason I don't miss it!

So Cheeky, how do you explain the presence of the words "holiday accommodation" in 325(2) and 325(3) if all it needs to be is a commercial letting? Why are they there? What do they mean?

Thanks (1)
Replying to cfield:
By cheekychappy
15th Sep 2016 20:02

Chris you are missing the test. Perhaps that is why Portia's patience is being tested.

You need to start by reading s323 3 (a) and (b). Once you have read that, you will see that the use of the term "holiday" in s325 is irrelevant.

Thanks (0)
Replying to cheekychappy:
By cfield
15th Sep 2016 20:28

But how can it be irrelevant? As I've already pointed out, section 323(3)(b) specifically references section 325, and 325(3) contains the words "the accommodation is commercially let as holiday accommodation".

The "as" is the operative word, surely. It requires the property to be let as holiday accommodation even if it isn't actually used as holiday accommodation. If the landlord let it as a holiday home, then yes I agree, it wouldn't matter a jot if the guests used it for other purposes, but that's not the case, is it? The landlord is letting it solely for someone to do a photo shoot, nothing else.

My only doubt here is whether such income should be aggregated with holiday lettings income if the property has already qualified as a FHL excluding days when it was not let as holiday accommodation. That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of.

Thanks (1)
By cheekychappy
15th Sep 2016 21:23

This is not difficult legislation. All you need to do is read it.

There are tests to satisfy.

There isn't one test that prohibits guests from using the accommodation for filming, [***], or burying their adulterous wife.

Thanks (0)
Replying to cheekychappy:
By cfield
15th Sep 2016 23:06

So what do you think it is I haven't read? What is it that, in your opinion, makes the words I've highlighted in section 325 irrelevant? Please explain.

Thanks (1)
Replying to cheekychappy:
By cfield
16th Sep 2016 08:59

cheekychappy wrote:

It's late, I'll give you some allowances here, but are you taking the [***]?

Cheeky, I think you have to decide whether you're a tax advisor or a troll.

I'll ask you one more time. Why, in your opinion, does the legislation not mean what it says it means?

If there really is something in there that nullifies those words in 325(2) and 325(3), then I'll be big enough to admit I was wrong. Until then, I shall assume that "commercially let as holiday accommodation" means exactly what the legislators intended it to mean.

Thanks (1)
By cheekychappy
16th Sep 2016 09:19

Calling me a troll is lame. And despite what you may think, Accounting Web members are not your unpaid tax advisors.

The legislation does not say what the occupants must use the property for.

Can you point me to part of the legislation where there are restrictions on what the accommodation can and cannot be used for?

Thanks (0)
Replying to cheekychappy:
By cfield
16th Sep 2016 10:48

cheekychappy wrote:

Calling me a troll is lame.

Well stop acting like one then. Bad language is not allowed on this site, so please stop using swear words.

cheekychappy wrote:

And despite what you may think, Accounting Web members are not your unpaid tax advisors.

Actually I ask very few questions on AWeb. If you look at my record, you'll see I'm one of those members who answer far more questions than I ask, so if anyone's an unpaid tax advisor, it's me. But if that's how you feel, then why bother answering questions on AWeb at all?

cheekychappy wrote:

The legislation does not say what the occupants must use the property for.

Agreed. But it does say what the landlord must let it as. I've already told you this.

cheekychappy wrote:

Can you point me to part of the legislation where there are restrictions on what the accommodation can and cannot be used for?

There aren't any, but it does restrict (or appear to restrict) what it can be let as. You appear to have missed that fine distinction.

Thanks (2)
By The Highlander
16th Sep 2016 09:46

Hi Cfield, aggregate with holiday income.

My opinion on the subject is that the property is furnished holiday accommodation and qualifies as furnished holiday accommodation under the tests specified. Therefore when they let the property each let qualifies under the same principle.

You seem to be focusing on what the end user does with the property rather than the property setup. you make reference to a brothel and it not qualifying, however you are incorrect in this thinking as long as it isn't the client who is running the brothel business!

If your client was putting contractual stipulations on the photo shoot users, such as you can't use the furniture, then yes you would have a point. However nothing you have said, other than the very confusing post at 16:38, makes me believe that this is not 'furnished holiday let' income.

Thanks (1)
Replying to The Highlander:
By cfield
16th Sep 2016 11:07

Thank you Highlander, at least that's a polite answer to the question I actually asked.

But I'm not focusing on what the tenant does. I'm focusing on what the landlord is doing, which is letting the property out from time to time solely for photo shoots. It is a separate business unconnected with the holiday letting.

If it was let as holiday accommodation to someone who used it as a brothel, obviously it would still qualify. If it was run as a brothel by the landlord, then obviously it would not qualify. But what if it was let specifically for use as a brothel by someone else? I would say it falls foul of the conditions in 325(3) and fails to count towards the 105 days.

Re the use of the furniture. I'm just guessing that the film crews are not allowed to sleep in the beds. I don't suppose there's an actual clause that forbids it. The film director himself would probably prevent his crew from doing that, but as the letting does not qualify anyway under s325(3) we do not even need to consider s323(3)(a).

Yes, that earlier post of mine was misleading as obviously the customer is doing the photo shoot, but I was trying to explain (obviously very badly) that the landlord was letting it for that purpose.

Thanks (0)
paddle steamer
By DJKL
16th Sep 2016 10:18

325

Meaning of “qualifying holiday accommodation”
.

(1)

Accommodation which is let by a person during a tax year is “qualifying holiday accommodation” for the tax year if the availability, letting and pattern of occupation conditions are met.
.

(2)

The availability condition is that, during the relevant period, the accommodation is available for commercial letting as holiday accommodation to the public generally for at least 140 days.
.

(3)

The letting condition is that, during the relevant period, the accommodation is commercially let as holiday accommodation to members of the public for at least 70 days.
.

(4)

For the purposes of the letting condition, a letting of accommodation for a period of longer-term occupation (see subsection (6)) is not a letting of it as holiday accommodation.
.

(5)

The pattern of occupation condition is that, during the relevant period, not more than 155 days fall during periods of longer-term occupation.
.

(6)

For the purposes of this section a “period of longer-term occupation” is a continuous period of more than 31 days during which the accommodation is in the same occupation otherwise than because of circumstances that are not normal.
_______________________________

Let as holiday accommodation is part of the letting tests.

I also struggle to see it qualifying if not let as holiday accommodation, however that does not mean ( to me) it requires use as such.

I think one could argue that where the pattern of marketing/advertising was "as holiday accommodation" that irrespective of the party taking a let using for something else it was " let as" holiday accommodation.

Now where the letting document varied in style etc from the standard holiday letting document, and was clear the letting was different, there is doubt it is let "as" holiday accommodation", but if not, same documentation/terms, I think actual use is irrelevant.

So, key is maybe what your client actually does .

I have let commercial property as film sets (Rebus and North & South) and certainly would not have used a standard letting agreement, but that is more because our standard is a much longer term thing, we do not do FHL. I would have thought a FHL agreement might well fit well into use to short term lease to a production company/photographer etc.

Thanks (1)
Replying to DJKL:
By cfield
16th Sep 2016 11:16

Thanks DJKL. Yes, the contract is probably key. If it is the same one the landlord uses for normal lets, then I see no reason why it should not qualify. However, my guess is that the production company gets the landlord to sign their own standard contract and there are probably verbal agreements on what they can do inside the property. Obviously something I need to discuss.

Thanks (0)
By Steve Kesby
16th Sep 2016 11:35

I agree, in part, with Chris's interpretation. And I agree, in part, with the alternative interpretation.

S. 323 requires that the lessee is entitled to the use of furniture and that the accommodation is qualifying holiday accommodation, under the tests in s. 325.

For the tests in s. 325 the accommodation must be available for commercial letting as holiday accommodation to the public generally for at least 210 days and must actually be commercially let as holiday accommodation to members of the public for at least 105 days.

When it is being let to the film production people it is not being let "as holiday accommodation", and it is also not being let to "members of the public". It is also not available for commercial letting as holiday accommodation to the public generally.

If, despite that, the tests are satisfied by reference to the time it is actually let as holiday accommodation to members of the public and/or is available for such letting, then the accommodation satisfies the definition of qualifying accommodation.

Having satisfied the definition we go back to s. 323 and then find that ANY letting of that qualifying holiday accommodation where the lessee has use of (some) furniture is a letting of furnished holiday accommodation, and consequently is a receipt of the FHL business.

We don't need Goldilocks to turn up though and actually use all of the furniture, as Chris seems to suggest. None of it need be actually used. All that is required is an entitlement to use (some) furniture in connection with the use of the accommodation.

Chris implies that the s. 325 tests are met, disregarding the photo shoot use, and so all letting receipts, where the lessee is entitled to use (some) furniture) are receipts of the FHL business.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Steve Kesby:
By cfield
16th Sep 2016 12:19

Thank goodness the cavalry have arrived at last.

Yes Steve, that seems an entirely logical conclusion and answers my question perfectly. Once it qualifies as a FHL (which it should do as only 28 more days were required last time I checked in July) then clearly all lettings of the accommodation will count as FHL income (so long as it was on a commercial basis with a view to making profits) regardless of whether it was for holidays or not.

So thanks for that. I just need to check the furniture point, but as you point out, only some needs to be used as 323(3)(a) merely says "use of furniture" not "use of THE furniture" or "all the furniture".

I think you must be our Goldilocks, as the 3 bears are already here (with very sore heads).

Thanks (0)
Replying to fawltybasil2575:
By cfield
16th Sep 2016 12:37

fawltybasil2575 wrote:

I shall take some dissuading from my current view that your client has two discrete sources of income, albeit [as mentioned above] they are treated as one UK Lettings business. Apportionment is required under S.327.

Thank you Baz. However, in the light of Steve's post, I don't think apportionment under s327 is required unless a) income or expenditure relates to both FHL and non-FHL properties (e.g. accountancy fees), or b) only part of a FHL property is let as holiday accommodation.

Thanks (0)
Replying to fawltybasil2575:
By cfield
16th Sep 2016 15:04

But Basil, aren't you missing the same key point that I did until Steve pointed it out? Once a property qualifies as a FHL from holiday bookings, any income from a commercial letting of that property, for any purpose, where the lessee has some use of the furniture, is thus deemed to be FHL income under section 323(3).

The only effect of Section 325 is that the photo shoots don't count towards the 105/210 days as they are not for holiday accommodation.

s323(3) states that "a letting is OF furnished holiday accommodation, not that it's FOR furnished holiday accommodation. Paragraph b) relates to the property itself, not the individual bookings.

Thanks (0)
By Steve Kesby
16th Sep 2016 14:54

Basil, whatever the nature of the photo shoot letting, what is being let is the same "accommodation" as is being let as "holiday accommodation".

If that "accommodation" satisfies the test of being "qualifying holiday accommodation" by reference to the periods only of when it is available to be and/or being actually let as holiday accommodation in s. 325, then the effect of s. 323(3) is that all lettings where the lessee is entitled to use furniture are lettings of furnished holiday accommodation.

Essentially, where s. 323(3)(b) has been satisfied by looking only at the "holiday accommodation use" in the relevant period, and letting in the tax year that satisfies the test of s. 323(a) then satisfies the definition of being a letting of furnished holiday accommodation.

In relation to apportionments, and notwithstanding HMRC's layout of the relevant tax return pages, an apportionment under s. 327 is only ever required if one of the three tests in s. 327(2) applies. Likewise an apportionment is only required under s. 328 if the test in s. 328(2). Similarly with s. 328A and s. 328B.

Thanks (1)
Replying to fawltybasil2575:
By cfield
16th Sep 2016 17:22

fawltybasil2575 wrote:

Until such time, and as ever respectful of your contrary views, I stand very firmly by my own [even though the OP now appears to have defected to the Opposition benches :)

For a minute there I thought you might be suggesting I'd become a Jeremy Corbyn supporter! I'm always prepared to stand corrected if someone can show me a convincing argument and Steve's interpretation of the legislation looks sound to me.

Reading it again, I see s323(3)(a) refers to "the use of the accommodation" as does s323(1). For that reason, I think it refers to the actual property rather than the nature of the income. It distinguishes the accommodation from the use of it.

That being so, I think we must assume that s323(3)(b) defines the word "accommodation" in the same way (i.e. as the property itself). Hence, it merely needs to pass the s325 tests for all income derived from commercial letting to count as FHL income if it satisfies s323(3)(a).

It does seem a bit of a loophole as clearly income not connected with actually staying at the place should be taxed as a trade subject to class 4 NI, but I don't think the draftsman had photo shoots in mind. In fact, it's hard to think of many ways a property could earn money other than as accommodation, apart from parking maybe.

Thanks (0)
Replying to cfield:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
16th Sep 2016 17:17

cfield wrote:

fawltybasil2575 wrote:

[even though the OP now appears to have defected to the Opposition benches :)

For a minute there I thought you might be suggesting I'd become a Jeremy Corbyn supporter! ).

I think, given the current Labour party, it is quite possible to sit on the opposition benches and not be a JC supporter; there a fair few of that ilk already seated.

Thanks (0)
Replying to fawltybasil2575:
By cfield
21st Sep 2016 11:44

Basil, I didn't quite follow your "barking up the wrong tree" metaphor. You may not be seeing "the wood for the trees". Or it could be you haven't "twigged" what Steve was getting at (in bad joke mood this morning).

I think we identified the right tree in ITTOIA 2005 and the leaf we were looking for is s323(3) as defined in s325. You imply that there is something else we need to look at, or alternatively that we are failing to understand what we are looking at.

You seem to disagree with our definition of the word "accommodation" in that we are treating it as the building itself rather than the way the building is used. You say I was on the right lines with my definition of accommodation in the OED (reiterated today by Steve) but that just supports our view that it is meant as the building (or dwelling as Steve prefers to put it). The words "in which someone may live or stay" merely differentiate the room(s) or building from one in which someone doesn't live or stay.

I'm not sure the film crews can be excluded as members of the public, as you remain a member of the public even if you're working, but if they're using the place for work rather than recreation, obviously it is not being let as "holiday accommodation", so the point is probably moot.

Thanks (0)
By Steve Kesby
21st Sep 2016 11:00

Sorry. Haven't been back for a while to keep up on this.

I still disagree with Basil that WHAT is being let alters its spots when WHY it is being let changes.

I do not think that Basil's use of the generic term "property" (which has a very wide legal meaning) is useful.

Basil uses the word property to suggest that property is a wider concept than accommodation. I agree with that proposition, but only because of the breadth of the concept of property.

It is generally accepted that "accommodation" takes its ordinary meaning from the dictionary: 'a room, group of rooms, or building in which someone may live or stay.' https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/accommodation

I think the appropriate word to use for the "property" is "dwelling", and a dwelling is a narrower concept than accommodation.

When the dwelling is let for photo shoots it is no less a dwelling simply because it is being used otherwise than as a dwelling.

Basil's suspicious mind assumes that there is some mischief here that the Parliamentary Draftsman should have "headed off at the pass".

I disagree. There is no mischief, because the bar has been set suitably high.

To satisfy the definition of qualifying holiday accommodation, the dwelling must have actually been let as holiday accommodation to members of the public for at least 105 days in the relevant period. It is not so let when it is being let for photo shoots.

The dwelling must have also been available for letting (including the time actually let as such) as holiday accommodation to the public generally for at least 210 days in the relevant period. It is not so available when it is being let for photo shoots.

Thus having satisfied the definition of qualifying holiday accommodation, there is at most 155 days on which the dwelling can be put to some purpose other than (and incidental to) letting as holiday accommodation.

Having set the bar so high, does the Parliamentary Draftsman really need to go out of his way to ensure that any receipts from such incidental activity fall outwith the furnished holiday lettings business? Or can he be content that the generation of such receipts cannot be attributable to any mischief and can be treated as receipts of that same single business?

Personally, I think the latter. In much the same way that the letting of surplus trading accommodation is permitted to be treated as a receipt of the trade.

Incidentally Chris, the profits of an FHL business are not liable to either Class 2 or Class 4 NI contributions. An FHL is only deemed to be a trade for CGT and Income Tax loss relief purposes. For other Income Tax purposes the profits are relevant earnings for pension purposes, capital allowances can be claimed against the profits, and a husband and wife can allocate the profits other than 50:50, but the profits are taxed as property income.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Steve Kesby:
By cfield
21st Sep 2016 12:14

Steve Kesby wrote:

Incidentally Chris, the profits of an FHL business are not liable to either Class 2 or Class 4 NI contributions. An FHL is only deemed to be a trade for CGT and Income Tax loss relief purposes. For other Income Tax purposes the profits are relevant earnings for pension purposes, capital allowances can be claimed against the profits, and a husband and wife can allocate the profits other than 50:50, but the profits are taxed as property income.

Thanks Steve, I was aware of all that, which is one of the reasons I wanted an answer to this question (although the photo shoot income was below the NI threshold in 2015/16 anyway).

Having said that, HMRC were sending out letters to landlords a few years ago trying to say that Class 2 NI was due in some cases. They were trying to have their cake and eat it as they won the Rashid case (where the taxpayer wanted to claim his rental activities as a trade and pay NI) on the grounds that he didn't do enough work, but then tried to charge NI to others on the basis that the landlords were doing enough work for it to be a trade, even though it was just the normal stuff that any landlord would have had to do under a typical lease.

I suppose that means some landlords could be caught for NI if they did enough work, and furnished holiday lets need more work than most, but unless you do it for a living rather than as a sideline, I wouldn't have thought there was any danger of NI rearing its ugly head.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Steve Kesby:
By cfield
21st Sep 2016 12:12

As an aside, the client in this case continues to use the holiday home occasionally between bookings, so there are private use adjustments to make. I also need to determine when the client first decided to let it commercially, so we have a cut-off date for pre-trading expenditure and annual investment allowance.

We also need to claim written-down allowances on all the furniture, equipment, etc, introduced to the business, including integral features. Assuming of course it gets FHL status (it still needs a few more days so the tax return is on hold).

On top of that, we need to agree a market value when the business first started as the mortgage was higher and we need to disallow some of the interest.

Quite an interesting case all round really.

Thanks (0)
Replying to cfield:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
21st Sep 2016 12:15

Is this a new variant of a spot the difference competition?

If so my competition entry:

Para 1 has the word "yes" in one version but not in the other,

Para two has the words "for it to be a trade" in one version but not the other.

Edit: now one of the near duplicate posts has gone, very strange

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
By cfield
21st Sep 2016 12:24

DJKL wrote:

Is this a new variant of a spot the difference competition?

You're reading them too quickly. Please wait until I've finished editing them :-)

Thanks (0)
By Steve Kesby
21st Sep 2016 12:37

The letters in relation to Class 2 NIC on property businesses followed HMRC losing in the Elisabeth Moyne Ramsay case. However, the NICA 2015 amendments to SSCBA 1992 have put it beyond doubt that Class 2 NIcs are not due in relation to property businesses, including FHLs.

Thanks (0)
By Steve Kesby
22nd Sep 2016 12:10

I'm happy to differ Basil.

However you do overlook one important word in the online OED definition, which appears before either "stay" or "live". That word is "may", as opposed to "must" or "does".

If I lend you two tennis rackets to use as snow shoes, then they are still tennis rackets, even though you're not playing tennis with them, but are walking with them.

A dwelling is accommodation. It equally remains a dwelling, and accommodation, even if it's being used as a cannabis farm. And I know how fond you are of your cannabis farms.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By paulwakefield1
23rd Sep 2016 09:10

This topic is so outside my sphere of operation, I am not quite sure why I started reading it (probably because the number of replies figure intrigued me).

It gradually turned out to be one of the best Aweb debates I have read for a long time. And good to see the big beasts back and slugging it out.

Keep up the good work!

Thanks (0)