So, the property is actually 'his' as its chargable for CGT.. So why is he having to pay any of it to his brothers?
This sounds very confused.
About half of VAT registered businesses are voluntarily registered. I don't know how many businesses that are not registered for VAT would be required to register if the threshold was dropped say to 70K.
Bear in mind, its worked into the system that a lot of sole traders 'work to' the limit to trade just under it.
It's a silly way of thinking, but it's common.
If the limit is reduced then a lot of people will be forced to either drop their turnover or register.
Its really not that complicated. Do SH01-issue 99 new shares. Yes you should have a resolution of a meeting covering it, but in a one man band thats a formality.
Have they considered CGT implications? Even if a gift there will be some.
So you want both corporate taxes and taxes on dividends, effecively killing any small company.
I know this is a wind up, but if that ever happened, it would utterly ruin the economy overnight as all small companies immediately disincorporated.
Justin Bryant wrote:
According to the above press reports, quite a lot.
The press don't tend to have a great knowledge of taxation. They seems to constantly think that revenue is somehow profit (see Amazon for example).
Are we talking about service charge accounts, or company accounts, as the two are often different.
If the company acts as an agent holding the assets on behalf of the members, then you could have a situation where company is completely dormant, but service charge accounts showing the income and expenditure are required.
Thanks for your responses.
So basically I am not capitalising in accounts because immaterial. But I am treating as capital expenditure in tax comps, and therefore adding the cost of these items back to profit as capital items not allowable expense. What I'm trying to confirm is that it is ok to apply AIA to offset the capital expenditure I've added back to profit?
Err what? If you don't capitalise it, then it's a revenue item not a capital item. Class it as 'small equipment' which is a perfect reasonable expense item.
Basically the company should have an accounting policy on what levels of expenditure on items it capitalises, but that £50, £200 or whatever.
Presumably when the house was sold, that should be treated as a part disposal of land, but the house covered by PPR. So the land 'as a whole', including the retained land would also be covered by PPR to that point?
So, the taxable gain would be the orginal base cost of the retained land to the disposal proceeds, with the period of when PPR applied applied. but you would get the last 18 months covered anyway, so shouldn't result in a taxable gain. Seeing as he's lived in the property for the last 20 odd year, then proportion which would be taxable would be pretty small.
But, as stated above, it's actually all covered anyway, the above would only apply if he hadn't lived there.
Presumably the Van is 'within' the business, as opposed to a private vehicle. The journey to his place of work is still a personal trip, so it has to be added back along with other private usage.