You might also be interested in
Replies (8)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Money laundering reform
The Chancellor also said in his Budget speech "we will reform our burdensome money laundering regime".
There's more on this in the Money Laundering and Crime Discussion Group.
David
Personal Allowances
I see the reason for the confusion. The text says PA raised to £8105 in 2011/12. Not so. The £8105 is for 2012/13.
Budget Report 2011 ICAEW
Chwww.ion.icaew.com/TaxFaculty/21939ttp://www.ion.icaew.com/TaxFaculty/21939
Corporation tax
For financial year to 31 March 2012
Main rate 26%
Small companies’ rate 20%
Upper profits limit £1.5m
Lower profits limit £300,000
Effective marginal rate 27.75%
Marginal rate fraction 7/400
Anyone else noticed the "marginal rate and the marginal rate fraction"
IR35: What the Chancellor missed - apparently to save £1m pa tax
Here's a good way to support StartUp Britain by a quick change to IR35 secondary Legisaltion:
A- As there was no change to the IR35 regime in the ’11 Budget for "growth" (contrary to the 20 May'10 announcement) may I suggest you alert the Chancellor (and PCG etc etc) to a potential change to the "Social Security Contributions (Intermediaries) Regulations 2000 SI 2000/727" Section 7 (1) Step One that reads:
QUOTE
7 Worker's attributable earnings—calculation
(1) For the purposes of regulation 6(3)(a) the amount of the worker's attributable earnings for a tax year is calculated as follows:
Step One
Find the total amount of all payments and benefits received by the intermediary in that year under the arrangements, and reduce that amount by 5 per cent
ENDQUOTE.
B- I suggest that the words "by 5 per cent" be replaced by:
"by a monetary amount that is the greater of either (1) £40,000 (forty thousand pounds) or (2) 15 (fifteen) per cent"
C- Reasons: (1) Need for economic growth to be stimulated in the private sector, eg by redundant public sector workers, with commercial certainty. (2) Some startup etc small business costs are fixed, i.e. independent of company revenue, and I have selected a "Highest Common Figure" reflecting (a) IPSA's costs for an MP's one person office in London, which is (b) justified for other UK locations because many small contractor businesses have to travel to London to work, network, for marketing, training, etc, etc.
D- More: I gather from evidence set before Parliament that the tax cost might be less than £1m pa, i.e. negligible!
And for civil servants [perhaps stimulated by self-interest, perish the thought!]: It may help newly redundant public sector workers seek new work, through releasing their entrepreneurial talent.
If you can give this moderate proposal some more traction with your support, I'd appreciate it!
Brgds - Don Stickland, BA, MA, BA, ACMA