Share this content
42

Cannot find amendment to legislation.

How do you find an amendment to legislation on the legislation.gov.uk web site (or anywhere else)?

Didn't find your answer?

How do you find an amendment to legislation on the legislation.gov.uk web site (or anywhere else)? I am trying to find S169Q of TCGA1992 but I can only find the original legislation, without the amendment.

Replies (42)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Tax Dragon
12th Feb 2018 13:01

It's madness to rely on that site. But you are lucky that s169Q survives as it was brought in by: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/9/schedule/3

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
12th Feb 2018 13:27

Thanks Tax Dragon. I don't know any other way of finding legislation.

Did you need to know it was in FA2008 to find it or is there a way you could find it without knowing that?

Thanks (0)
Replying to chatman:
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
12th Feb 2018 14:07

In proper paid for legislation, it tells you the history of each section. Then you can point people who're too dumb to invest in paid for legislation where to find it on the interweb.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
avatar
By chatman
12th Feb 2018 14:21

Thanks Portia. Best of luck with the personality disorder.

Thanks (1)
Replying to chatman:
By Ruddles
12th Feb 2018 15:00

Seems I'm suffering from the same affliction, since I echo Portia's sentiments syllable for syllable.

Paying for proper and reliable reference material is one of the costs of providing sound professional advice. But perhaps ...

Thanks (1)
Replying to Ruddles:
avatar
By chatman
12th Feb 2018 15:34

Sycophant.

Thanks (2)
Replying to chatman:
By Ruddles
12th Feb 2018 16:08
Thanks (0)
Replying to Ruddles:
avatar
By chatman
12th Feb 2018 16:23

My response related specifically to your behaviour. You're just firing back meaningless insults now.

Thanks (1)
Replying to chatman:
By Ruddles
12th Feb 2018 16:49

It's no more meaningless than your own. Anyone that calls someone else a sycophant merely because that someone else happens to agree with the wise words of another contributor is, IMO, a [email protected] In case you hadn't noticed, Portia and I have often crossed swords - on this occasion, I just happen to think she is spot on.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Ruddles:
avatar
By chatman
12th Feb 2018 18:59

Not at all Ruddles. My comment was clearly directed at the sycophantic behaviour, as you recognise by going out of you way to imply that you have been brave enough to criticise Portia in the past. Why would you mention that if you did not know why you were being called a sycophant?

[email protected] is a non-specific insult.; a very different thing.

Thanks (0)
Replying to chatman:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
12th Feb 2018 19:16

You've made your point already. You are in danger of exhibiting the behaviour you say you find offensive. I for one find your retorts no more edifying than the comments you are replying to.

Thanks (0)
Replying to chatman:
avatar
By jimmyxyz
12th Feb 2018 16:42

If you are looking for information on legislation.gov.uk, use ‘Advanced Search \keywords in content ‘and it should bring up what you need.

If you are looking for a section of an Act, e.g. S169Q, then leave out the ‘S’ and just use ‘169Q’ or use ‘Section 169Q’.

Thanks (2)
Replying to jimmyxyz:
avatar
By chatman
12th Feb 2018 18:53

Wow, that's brilliant advice. Thanks jimmyxyz.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By chatman
12th Feb 2018 14:20

Thanks Justin.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
By Ruddles
12th Feb 2018 14:58

And once the free trial has ended, what then?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Tax Dragon
12th Feb 2018 15:37

chatman I hope you are aware that FA2008 includes only a fraction of the ER legislation as it now exists. You could try to work through every subsequent Finance Act to work out the changes. But I wouldn't recommend it. I am absolutely four-square with Portia and Ruddles on this one.

Do your insurers know you are giving tax advice without current consolidated legislation?

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By chatman
12th Feb 2018 19:00

Tax Dragon wrote:
Do your insurers know you are giving tax advice without current consolidated legislation?

Yes, I told them. They said it's fine.

Seriously though, it's not the sentiment to which I object, it's the uncontrolled desire to be rude. The point could easily have been made without being rude; the rudeness adds nothing, but takes the poster more time than it would have done if they had chosen not to be rude. It therefore harms both them and the OP (me in this case) in terms of wasted time and irritation and I think it is therefore correctly classified as a personality disorder.

Ruddles's behaviour is just as bad because she simply sucks up to the playground bully, presumably to try to discourage the aggression being turned on her. In doing so, however, she encourages the anti-social behaviour.

It must be awful being inside the head of one of these people, with all the bitterness and insecurity that drives them to behave in this way, but there is nothing I can do about that.

Thanks (5)
Replying to chatman:
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
12th Feb 2018 16:04

I don't think I was rude. If a taxi driver told me that his car didn't have any brakes, I wouldn't consider myself rude when I called him dumb; it's a simple statement of fact.

Neither did *I* make it personal.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
avatar
By chatman
12th Feb 2018 16:52

But Portia it would be rude (likely to offend). There is an argument (with which I disagree) that it is better to be rude because it makes the taxi driver more likely to fix his brakes than if you were polite, but it is definitely rude.

A statement of fact can still be rude.

Thanks (0)
Replying to chatman:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
12th Feb 2018 16:08

Ask them if they would reduce your premium if you bought some resource.

Advisors relying on a combination of AWeb and gov.uk is orders of magnitude worse than Joe Public doing that. (And I say that without wishing to waste your time or cause irritation.)

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By chatman
12th Feb 2018 19:01

But Tax Dragon, no-one on this thread has any idea what part having access to the exact wording of the legislation has played in this matter. Whilst my tax reference manual, the specialist who advises me and the free tax advice line provided by my insurer all refer to the relevant legislation, and paraphrase it in their advice, I often find I would like to read the exact wording myself.

I understand the (incorrect) assumption that I am trying to advise on an area of tax with which I am unfamiliar with no qualified support or technical reference manual but they could have responded in a far more productive way, such as "Chatman - It is very difficult to find it from that web site. I found it from publication/service xyz, to which I subscribe. It costs £x/year. I recommend it".

As I said before, it is not the advice I object to (and cannot fault), it is the offensive manner in which the respondent chooses to address it.

Thanks (6)
Replying to chatman:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
12th Feb 2018 16:47

Well, you are lucky (as I said) that this time around the section you wanted to read still survives as originally enacted. Ss135 and 136, to which it refers, are not as they appear on gov.uk. You need to read FA2002 to find out what they now look like.

No, I don't know what you are doing with this information. All I am saying is it's a helluva gamble to use gov.uk as a source of legislation; and madness (I said that already) to rely on it.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By chatman
12th Feb 2018 19:06

Tax Dragon wrote:
it's a helluva gamble to use gov.uk as a source of legislation; and madness (I said that already) to rely on it.

To rely on it, *and nothing else*, would indeed be madness.

Thanks (0)
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
12th Feb 2018 16:27

On a wider point, it is really poor that you cant get current legislation in one place, without stumping up subs.

Thanks (3)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
avatar
By chatman
12th Feb 2018 16:37

I absolutely agree. I often want to look up non-tax-related legislation simply in my capacity as a private individual wanting to know their legal rights and obligations (which was partly the reason for my original question). It is ridiculous that we should have to pay for that.

Thanks (0)
Replying to chatman:
avatar
By kaff
12th Feb 2018 18:26

Have you considered taking that point up with your MP, rather than on here? The government has chosen not to allow citizens of this country free access to its legislation. There are a pile of MPs currently banging on about the benefits of Brexit for the sake of democracy, and yet the same bunch of people make it incredibly difficult for the populace to inform themselves about the laws to which we are subject.

Thanks (0)
Replying to kaff:
avatar
By chatman
12th Feb 2018 19:05

No, but it is a good idea. It's one of those things you don't expect them to take any notice of. That's probably why it hasn't occurred to me.

Thanks (0)
Replying to kaff:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
12th Feb 2018 19:12

kaff wrote:

The government has chosen not to allow citizens of this country free access to its legislation.


Is that true? I do not know, but I suspect instead that the government has chosen to allow us free access. It may even think that it has given us free access. It's perhaps guilty of no more than ignorance.

(Not that ignorance is any defence....)

Thanks (0)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
12th Feb 2018 16:50

Totally. Ignorance is no defence, but not telling us what the law is in the first place does seem like an offence!

Thanks (1)
avatar
By chatman
12th Feb 2018 19:16

It's funny; I thought that, by going further than simply accepting my tax advisers' interpretation, and reading the actual legislation myself, I was being a little more diligent. Shows what I know!

Thanks (0)
Replying to chatman:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
12th Feb 2018 19:25

My mistake to think you were giving advice, not receiving it.

Although I agree with you that (our) advice should be checked (as the ultimate decision rests with the client), I have to say that if you don't trust your advisors on s169Q, you don't trust them on much!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By chatman
12th Feb 2018 19:38

You're right, but I wouldn't know that without reading S169Q.

But it's not only that; I think it enhances my understanding if I read the legislation myself (if I can understand it), and it is good practice reading legislation, as I often find it difficult to understand.

Regardless of what you thought I was doing with the information, you were kind enough to respond politely with the information I had requested, so thank you again.

Thanks (1)
Replying to chatman:
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
13th Feb 2018 11:02

In the spirit of being helpful, if you were receiving advice referring to s 169Q, why could you not ask them to let you have a printed copy. Most advisers will be using online libraries, under licences that do permit printed copies to be taken and disrtibuted in such a mannner.

They'd probably have admired your gumption, and provided you with all of the relevant sections in print/pdf.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
avatar
By chatman
13th Feb 2018 11:30

Thank you Portia, that is a good idea.

Thanks (0)
Replying to chatman:
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
13th Feb 2018 11:32

Of course it's a fuching good idea!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
By Ruddles
13th Feb 2018 11:40

I was about to also say that it's a good idea, but I'd only be branded a sycophant.

Thanks (0)
By mrme89
13th Feb 2018 12:15

A reasonable question. 37 comments. Yowza.

Thanks (0)
Replying to mrme89:
avatar
By Paul Hawes
13th Feb 2018 12:47

It wouldn't be accountingweb otherwise.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Hawes:
By mrme89
13th Feb 2018 13:44

True, and sometimes it can be entertaining. Other times, like this example, it's just embarrassing.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Montrose
13th Feb 2018 13:22

The short answer is FA 2008, Schedule 3.

The UK system of tax legislation is not continuous consolidation, but consists of patches and changes added in each Finance Act.
CCH and Butterworths paper versions give all the cross references.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By chicken farmer
20th Feb 2018 14:39

Buy the CCH Red Books or Butterworths Yellow!

S 169Q has never been amended since it was introduced by FA 2008

Thanks (0)
Share this content