.

.

Didn't find your answer?

.

Replies (28)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Tax Dragon
30th Apr 2021 19:53

More than 60%?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Wanderer
30th Apr 2021 20:15

. boy is back!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wanderer:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
30th Apr 2021 20:34

The black spot. (Remember, never use a page from the bible)

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
30th Apr 2021 20:59

Maybe it's a Sift promotion ... when you've been a good boy or girl for long enough, they give you a special tool with which you can read the micro-dots (as per The Ipcress File)?
If so, the message is likely to escape my quizzical attention for quite some time - based on recent admonishments!

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Hugh Simpson
30th Apr 2021 21:15

Anonymous poster and few words.
That must cover everything.

Thanks (0)
Avatar
By I'msorryIhaven'taclue
30th Apr 2021 21:21

And the answer is, it depends.

Yours truly once registered an unexpected and undeserved exam #1 in a class of 100 economics hopefuls, by virtue of the simple expedient of commencing very exam answer with "It depends..." (which mirrored our lecturer's view of all things micro-, macro, and real-world: Keynesinism or monetarism? What's the meaning of life? Is that parrot dead? Answer: It depends!).

Thanks (2)
Replying to I'msorryIhaven'taclue:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
30th Apr 2021 21:50

Ah, exam techniques ... some learn them; others just intuitively know what to do.

Somerset Maugham visited his old school to give a speech - which he concluded with "Remember. Every good story must contain 3 elements ... religion, sex and mystery."
The next day, teacher set a class of 11 year-olds to write a short story showing that they'd listened to the great man. After a mere couple of minutes, little Annie stuck up her hand much to the annoyance of teacher ... who refused to believe the task had been completed already, so demanded the child stand up and read out loud what she'd written.

"My god. I'm pregnant. Who dunnit?"

Thanks (4)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
Avatar
By I'msorryIhaven'taclue
01st May 2021 10:43

An immaculate conception!

Thanks (0)
Replying to I'msorryIhaven'taclue:
avatar
By Hugh Simpson
30th Apr 2021 21:56

That would be an ecumenical matter ...

Thanks (2)
Replying to Hugh Simpson:
Avatar
By I'msorryIhaven'taclue
01st May 2021 10:42

Quote:

That would be an ecumenical matter ...

I'm bound to say Yes

Thanks (0)
Replying to I'msorryIhaven'taclue:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
30th Apr 2021 22:10

I came 1st once in an exam during the PG conversion course (A one year relevant graduate conversion course), but I managed it by the fluke of working through a couple of separate taxation of husband and wife past paper questions (remember them) the night before the exam ,and guess what came up as 25% of the marks.

How many times did you manage to write "Ceteris Paribus"?

I only did two years of economics in my first degree, after year one we effectively got told, "All that stuff you studied last year, well, it was all a bit simplistic, this year we will unravel some of it it and finesse it". I raised this with my flatmate (Later best man) who was taking honours economics and he said that approach continued in both third and fourth year, economics was always like moulding sand in 3D.

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By Hugh Simpson
30th Apr 2021 22:30

Let's remember the Pareto principle.

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
Avatar
By I'msorryIhaven'taclue
01st May 2021 10:34

Quote:

How many times did you manage to write "Ceteris Paribus"?

Ahha, well remembered - of course that was the other stock phrase (although Latin had been displaced by Welsh on our syllabus; so I elected to stick with God's language.)

I'm fascinated that this thread features as trending on Aweb this Saturday morning. Maybe it's time for a group blog!

Thanks (0)
Replying to I'msorryIhaven'taclue:
Red Leader
By Red Leader
04th May 2021 22:03

But not in the biblical sense.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By DaveyJonesLocker
01st May 2021 16:51

Quote:

.

I vote no

Thanks (0)
Replying to DaveyJonesLocker:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
01st May 2021 17:13

Or 'maybe' (who knows if there were originally 3 or 4 or 5 dots in the question?)

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
Avatar
By I'msorryIhaven'taclue
02nd May 2021 10:37

That rather depends!

Thanks (1)
Replying to I'msorryIhaven'taclue:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
02nd May 2021 11:05

I didn't count the dots. I can tell you the question referred to more than 50% (of fee income, not of dots). My initial reply was to see if I could narrow it down. Maybe I was too interrogative in my approach? OP's response perhaps shows why Sift discourage a full-on grilling? (I'm practising asking softer questions there... how am I doing?)

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
Avatar
By I'msorryIhaven'taclue
02nd May 2021 11:11

Quote:

I'm practising asking softer questions there... how am I doing?

Depends how you look at it :)

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
02nd May 2021 11:21

Ameliorative score has noticeably sky-rocketed ... but sometimes with an inverse impact on your usual clarity. Cutting to the chase is not a skill to be discarded lightly (and that's from someone who enjoys wandering around all over the place)!

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
02nd May 2021 11:29

Hugo Fair wrote:

Ameliorative score has noticeably sky-rocketed ... but sometimes with an inverse impact on your usual clarity.

"Inverse impact on your usual clarity"? Would the equivalent legislative phrase we all know, love and completely understand be "your usual clarity has been adversely affected"?

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
02nd May 2021 11:41

I was going for the style of one of my old teachers whose corrections were always informative (but hid a kind of compliment).
One of my favourites (even after nearly 60 years) was in an essay on the poor of London in early Victorian times, where I said that "many people lived in dinghy houses". Instead of merely correcting the spelling mistake, he added a note in the margin "Could none of them afford house-boats then?"

Thanks (2)
Avatar
By I'msorryIhaven'taclue
02nd May 2021 11:17

Here's the original question (although I have to say i prefer the dots):
Employment allowance and nurseries
Is a nursery eligible to claim the employment allowance?
A private business but over 50% of fees are received from local council funding for free childcare placements. The nursery does not have charitable status.

Thanks (1)
Replying to I'msorryIhaven'taclue:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
02nd May 2021 11:32

So what caused the plague of dots?

Simple question (based solely on info provided) with a simple answer:
* EA is not dependent on anything to do with source of funding, or indeed charitable status.
* There are eligibility conditions - primarily relating to the amount of ER's NICs paid in previous tax year (including by connected companies).
* See https://www.gov.uk/claim-employment-allowance/eligibility for more detail and to see if specific Nursery meets eligibility criteria.

EDIT: Of course if OP didn't mean EA, but say CJRS, then completely different answers are applicable (including the relevance of source of funding).
[Only mentioned as example of why it's often impossible to give answers until responder questions have been answered].

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By More unearned luck
03rd May 2021 22:48

From shortly after the announcement of the first CJRS special rules were introduced for 'early year' providers as they continued to receive their dedicated schools grant in full despite the nurseries being closed. Therefore, they would be better off if they made claims in full for their furloughed staff. Special rules apply that broadly limit their CJRS grants by reference to their lost income (ie the amounts the parents ordinarily paid).

Thanks (0)
Replying to More unearned luck:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
03rd May 2021 23:23

Yes I know ... which is why I said "Of course if OP didn't mean EA, but say CJRS, then completely different answers are applicable (including the relevance of source of funding)."

But OP (before the plague of dots) specifically asked "Is a nursery eligible to claim the employment allowance?"
Hence my answers to that exact question ... but with a separate mention that the answers would be different with regard to other allowances/grants - like CJRS.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By More unearned luck
04th May 2021 18:53

Fair enough. I can't criticise your pedantry. I'm ashamed at my failure to answer the question asked.

Thanks (0)
By SteveHa
04th May 2021 08:32

Quote:

.

To answer the OP, we need more information. You need to consider the contradicting terms between TMA, ITEPA and IHTA, and whether or not they make a difference.

It's also possible that TCGA and CA will be in point, not forgetting CAA and CTA.

You really need to learn to ask better questions.

Thanks (0)