Hi Richard

No, you haven't missed the draft legislation. The ministerial statement promises further details which as yet have not been provided. I've updated the article to make that clear.

Very good, Chancellor Mooney. I particularly like the idea of matching the personal allowance to the living wage.

And mine Rebecca. Burn the barnacle!

*writer's expense.

Speaking as a chartered accountant, I do not share your "taste" in "humour" johnjenkins. I am glad to see your most offensive personal comment on this article has now been deleted.

Great article, Lucy! So important to do what we can to avoid burnout during busy periods but it's all too easy to forget, so thanks for the reminder.

I too am a huge fan of meal prep kits - meal planning for the kids is as much as I can handle on top of work, life admin and everything in between. Without the meal prep kits I often fell into the trap of skipping my own meals or unhealthy takeaways. The "just add water" options are also perfect for staying on top of nutrition when I don't have time to prepare a healthy lunch.

Interesting that so many people are recommending gardening as therapy. Personally I detest gardening, I'm rubbish at it and for me it's the opposite of therapeutic. I'd rather pay a gardener and go for a run to clear my head.

Anyway, the point that most people seem to be missing here is that we can all make small changes to our lifestyle, which will of course be different depending on our individual situation and preferences, but it's important to open that conversation and get people thinking about it.

Haha sadly not!

I qualified 12 years ago and spent the next ten as an ICAEW tutor.

I set the expectation for all of my students that they would be spending the majority of their free time studying during exam periods, and in my experience most of the good ones did. Very few were given study leave outside of tuition and revision courses and the exams themselves. The focus was on encouraging them to build in an hour or two for leisure or relaxation but studying most of the time.

When I was qualifying we used away jobs as a good opportunity to revise (often preferable to sitting through awkward dinners with the audit team at the Premier Inn...). We spent all our evenings and weekends revising and it paid off - I always told my students there's a reason it's such a valuable qualification, it takes a lot of HARD work and personal investment.

Thank you for your comments, Justin. I believe I did highlight HMRC's position that the GLP's legal challenge has not succeeded and that HMRC's response (quoting myself) "renders the legal challenge redundant and the carried-interest loophole a figment of the imagination".

I had read the TJ article linked in your comment before writing my article, as well as a great deal of other sources. My article seeks to explain the treatment currently applied to carried-interest and how carried-interest should be treated per the legislation. It was never intended, and nor does it come across as, a he-said-she-said between DN, GLP and HMRC - there's plenty of that elsewhere on the web.

Hi Coops, agreed it is unnecessarily confusing.

Stage 3 of the ‘Flowchart’ under EIM23900 ‘Employee charges car at home: their employer reimburses the electricity costs’ is the question: “What is the car used for?” alongside the advice “If private use only, reimbursement is taxed as earnings. If business use only or mixed-use, go to stage 3a”. The corresponding guidance for employer-owned cars is, as you correctly point out, at Stage 2 of the flowchart. Stage 2 says “What is the car used for?” And then if the answer is “Business and private mileage.” the “Outcome” is no tax charge. The (incorrect) implication - as I interpret it - is that if there is private use only the reimbursement will be taxed as earnings.

As mentioned in the article, the past event has to be the damage itself. Until damage exists there is a "realistic alternative" to reparation costs (don't cause the damage - this could be achieved by exiting the lease, remedial or strengthening works etc.). The alternative doesn't have to be likely, just achievable.

Signing the lease creates the "present obligation" (legal not constructive in this case) but not the "past event".

To put a value on the potential future obligation may seem prudent, however would not be in line with the accruals concept as it would recognise an expense for damage in advance of its being caused.

This element of the standard I believe is in place to discourage profit smoothing - holding back profit in one year by creating a provision which you could then release in a future year when profit is not as healthy.