Member Since: 2nd Oct 2001
13th May 2009
Plenty of people seem to know of the rule
going by the regularity with which questions arise on another tax forum, generally for BTL owners trying to wriggle in and claim it.
I have to say it did cross my mind to wonder how much longer the rule might remain given the "SHOCK HORROR PROBE" reporting recently re Hazel Blears apparent PPR claim "even though it was her second home for the parlimentary claim". My thought re the tax claim was it would have been pretty standard advice from a tax point of view and perfectly within the rules. All of which leaves aside the issue of the parliamentary claims.
And of course now David Cameron has told his shadow colleagues to pay the CGT if they have made a claim.
12th Nov 2008
Talk to HMRC
Hopefully in a case like that you have a Large Business Unit contact who should accept a reasonable get around.
From conversations I have had the suggestion in the Specials & Exclusions list was badly worded by HMRC and in fact refers to the wrong boxes. If the software developer followed it to the letter you get an odd result.
Further after discussing this in one instance HMRC seemed happy that so long as the true figures were shown in the attachments what the return showed was neither here nor there - I paraphrase.
The main thing is speak to HMRC contact - forcing it up if you do not have a dedicated LBU contact - and agree a way forward agreeable to both, say enter turnover <£15M and a single "Other Expense" adjustment to get to the true tax profit. That should let you allocate it to partners in your software, and with the other attachments sent electronically with the return should satisfy everyone.
I am not so sure that HMRC does actually connect the share according to the partnership return with the personal return just yet, but I could be wrong!
10th Nov 2008
re: Missing partner UTR's
I wonder whether the getaround at point 25 on page 7 of the Personal Special cases - http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ebu/se-indi.pdf - might work, ie using a dummy UTR of 99999 99999
Perhaps HMRC should be pushed by CIOT / Tax Faculty sooner rather than later to confirm such a getaround for the circumstance of a new partner for whom a UTR has not been issued.
12th Mar 2008
the elephant stays in the room for another year. Probably just as well, but will another year make it any easier to describe in legislation?
7th Feb 2008
A couple of thoughts from my experience
1) Third party software was not an issue, other than getting the email response, and that is nothing to do with the software which had received the confirmation reply that is the important bit anyway. Having seen my firms filing stats we filed a very large number in the final week. So if you are acting for clients why rely on HMRC software when, as has already been said, reliable third can be found at no great cost.
2) Whilst the final days problems were an annoyance, if one wanted to log in to check payments or somesuch, it was still a huge improvement on the previous year
10th Oct 2007
The draft IHT transfer legislation says
After IHTA section 8 insert—
“8A Transfer of unused nil-rate band between spouses and civil partners
(2) For the purposes of this section a person has unused nil-rate band on death if—
M > VT
M is the maximum that could be transferred by the chargeable transfer made (under section 4 above) on the person’s death if it were to be wholly chargeable to tax at the rate of nil per cent.; and
VT is the value actually transferred by that chargeable transfer (or nil if there is no such chargeable transfer).
(3) Where a claim is made under this section, the nil-rate band maximum at the time of the survivor’s death is to be treated for the purposes of the charge to tax on the death of the survivor as increased by the percentage specified in subsection (4) below (but subject to subsection (5) and section 8C below).
(4) That percentage is—
E is the amount by which M is greater than VT in the case of the deceased person; and
NRBMD is the nil-rate band maximum at the time of the deceased person’s death.
Section 8A of IHTA 1984 (as inserted by paragraph 2) has effect in relation to cases where the deceased person died before 18 March 1986 (and the survivor dies on or after 9 October 2007)
So it probably does not apply to your client anyway
16th Aug 2007
Count me another Norton hater
It came packaged on the machine with a long licence (don't ask!!) and has recently developed an extended login wait - though not 6 minutes.
The router firewall is on and email comes through Mailwasher Pro so I sometimes wonder why I do not just switch over to Avast - which is free for home use and better than most on the market anyway according to a friend in the business
9th May 2007
9th Mar 2007
Neil, try your solution on the data provided
you will find it does not work after 12 Jan 2007
1st Mar 2007
very elegant on the VBA.