Share this content

AIA Transitional allowance

AIA Transitional allowance

Didn't find your answer?

I paid a small reservation deposit on a new pickup (VW Amarok) before Christmas (one side of the transition) but will be picking up and paying the full finance deposit on the pick up in a few weeks time (the other side of the transition). is there any impact because of this regarding the AIA transitional moves - I don't have enough of the allowance available prior to the change. My ghut feel is "no" but just in case is there anything I should be considering prior to completing the transaction?

Thanks.

Will

Replies (12)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By George Attazder
06th Feb 2013 09:21

Faulty Basil is right...

... that the amount of AIA will depend on both when you are treated as having incurred the expenditure for capital allowances purposes (assuming of course that the "finance agreement" is of the nature of a hire purchase agreement, rather than a finance lease, otherwise, capital allowances aren't in point) and the period end, as the transitional rules will restrict the £250K allowance until you've reached the beginning of the next period.

He's not COMPLETELY correct though to say that expenditure is incurred when there is an unconditional obligation TO PURCHASE. What S.5 CAA 2001 ACTUALLY says that expenditure is incurred when there's an unconditional obligation TO PAY [the expenditure concerned], which is subtly different, but nonetheless DIFFERENT.

In the case of a conract of the nature of a hire purchase agreement, all expenditure is then deemed incurred (under S.67(3)) when the asset is BROUGHT INTO USE.

You haven't really given sufficient information for anyone to answer your question though, which is probably why Faulty Basil gave such a FLAWED response.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By BKD
06th Feb 2013 09:34

Your response ...

... is SPOT on, George (even though a little on the BRIEF side) ;)

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By BKD
07th Feb 2013 11:40

I see ...

... it is OK for you, Basil, to make assumptions (not clearly stated and not obvious), yet you accuse others who do so (even where the assumption is more obvious) to be WRONG?

I decided that brevity was appropriate

It's a pity that doesn't apply to all your posts.

a trader buying goods is legally obliged to pay for them on delivery unless there are terms to the contrary in the contract - it would be unusual for the purchaser of a van to be given "terms to the contrary"

More sloppy wording. In my experience, "cash on delivery" is the exception rather than the rule - in the case of significant plant and vehicle purchases it is often the case that full payment is not required until a later date. The unconditional obligation to pay may well arise on delivery, but that is not the same as saying that the purchaser is "obliged to pay for them on delivery". Again a subtle difference, but an important difference.

I stand 100 percent behind George's comment. The fact that you feel the need to go into such length in a FAILED attempt to justify your careless wording vindicates his remarks.

Thanks (1)
By Steve Kesby
07th Feb 2013 10:29

Oops.

Wrong thread!

Thanks (0)
By George Attazder
07th Feb 2013 11:21

Assumption and Brevity

Faulty Basil, the brevity in your initial post is nothing short of atypical and assumption is a dangerous thing.  When you cross a busy street, do you assume that there are no cars coming? Or do you take the precaution of looking?

Thanks (1)
avatar
By BKD
17th Feb 2013 08:52

Explained?

The purported "subtlety" is an illusion - fully explained in lines 14 to 18 of my last post.

No, it is not explained. You were referring to a delay between date of delivery and date of bringing into use. I was talking about the timing of the obligation to pay and the timing of actual payment - a quite different point to yours. Clearly I was right - the subtlety is lost on you.

I obviously move in more humble circles than you folks

Perhaps so. A client of mine has just taken delivery of a new £250k tractor. No formal finance, but payable in two instalments in 30 and 60 days.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By BKD
17th Feb 2013 18:52

Absurd

So many words, and so little said - again. You're the one throwing all the red herrings in whilst ignoring my very simple and straightforward point.

All I had pointed out was the sloppiness of your words - a trader buying goods is legally obliged to pay for them on delivery unless there are terms to the contrary in the contract

I am not immune from making mistakes, or using words carelessly, but you will find that I am usually only too happy to acknowledge that when required. You on the other hand appear to be unable to admit your mistakes and be hell-bent on trying to justify yourself and prove yourself to be right - succeeding only in digging yourself deeper and deeper into the hole. If you want to carry on digging, I've a client with a new tractor that can help. BTW, he also has a number of £20kish vans, all owned outright but none of them - as far as I am aware - paid by cash on delivery.

So again, explained? No, NOT AT ALL. Nowhere have you even attempted to explain, or acknowledge,  the [subtle, but important] difference between "payment on delivery" and "an obligation that arises on delivery". No doubt you'll employ the same tactic as before and claim that you have already explained it, but refuse to indicate where - the tactic of he who has lost the argument. As is the tactic of claiming others' points to be an irrelevance.

To answer your first point, debate about perceived "subtleties" is counter-productive

If you really don't want to answer my point, that is up to you. But don't then claim to have explained anything.

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Pottedbeef
17th Feb 2013 21:15

Pathetic

Listen to yourselves.

That is all.

 

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Boycie
19th Feb 2013 20:34

Lost on me( and others too ?)

I am inclined to agree with Pottedbeef ! - first-rate putdown !  I haven't read all the comments in detail in this "thread" ( I think that is the right word, as I'm a novice on here) so I will not comment on the general points, although I am more persuaded by fawltybasil's views, which seem to hold water.  Basil  has explained his views  and I can't find anything to support BKD's  position, but possibly there is something which I have missed.  I do think that BKD should accept Basil's decision to draw a line under the matter, and I think you should both just agree  to differ ( so it is  bit out of order for BKD  to say that Basil will now "employ the same tactic" and "claim that have already explained it" - I can't  see where Basil has said that , but it does put doubt in my mind that you BKD have read Basil's posts properly as his post directed at you told you that he would NOT make any further comment !! !)

No, I really must ask BKD to explain a rather strange ( in my opinion) assertion, which appears in his last post and was indeed also included ( in slightly longer form) in an earlier post from him.  BKD  refers( twice ) to the "sloppiness" of Basil's comment that :-

" a trader buying goods is legally obliged to pay for them on delivery unless there are terms to the contrary in the contract".

You BKD  lambast Basil in your last post about this comment.    Clearly you are really determined not to  allow Basil to get away with what you believe to be  very "sloppy" comments about  aspects of a contract.     You do not say WHY you are sure that Basil's comment is so sloppy, ie whether  you are saying that it is an incorrect interpretation of the law of contract, or poor grammar/punctuation,spelling/syntax , or incorrect in a variety of ways - but I am sure that you must have two or three errors in mind, to be so condemnatory.   Unless I am very mistaken I suspect that some other readers of this "thread(?)" may share my surprise at your lambasting Basil about his interpretation of the law ( other readers will no doubt tell me about   five or six mistakes in Basil's words  !!).

  So BKD, please let me know what errors you have found in Basil's words,  and if they relate to the law of contract ( I can't really believe that you would be so critical if it was just say a grammtical error or two, although I can't find any !  ) then  please point me in the direction of the legislation which establishes Basil's misunderstanding of the law ( a "link" to the legislation would be very useful please, if you are able).

Thank you BKD in anticipation.

   

 . 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By BKD
19th Feb 2013 21:04

Explanation?

I already have, several times.

Let's see how you like it, Basil.

(sorry, was that a Freudian slip?)

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Boycie
19th Feb 2013 22:05

Add-on to my last post.

    I meant to say on last post that I am interested in this legal matter as I had spoken to a friend who is also looking into it because he's reasonably sure that Basil is quite right about the wording even though BKD seems to think the opposite ( I am not an expert on grammar etc so I will pass on that one !).     So if anyone else can help with the legislation, please help me ( I suppose I could google contract law, and get there eventually !).    There might be budding lawyers on this site too possibly !      

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Henry Osadzinski
24th Feb 2013 00:01

Mod note

Folks, we've had to take down a few posts from this thread and it's got to a point where the community rules are being broken. Please remember that AWEB is a professional site and that off-topic & personal argument is not appropriate - it derails discussions and doesn't help the OP in any way. As a result of this, this thread is now closed. Please avoid making personal comments and remember to respect the author of the post's original question when replying.

Thanks (0)
Share this content