Quickbooks just ran a free 30 minute webinar, headed by a man from HMRC, on the self-employed scheme. He was using the 21st April version of the guidance not the 1st May one and, in response to a very limited number of questions, referred most of them to the guidance and did not know if the grant was net or gross of tax, thus clearly had not even read the very short guidance. I think Quickbooks have shot themselves in the foot with that one. He did however say and I quote, to the best of my note taking ability, you can claim if you are 'suffering as a result of coronavirus'. I had three questions, none of which were taken up, 1) How much profit do you have to lose to be able to claim? 2) ref the 1/5/20 version examples, if you lose a lot of income from a customer, but still so some work for the customer, does this qualify you for a claim? and 3) Is the claim a monthly claim with monthly qualification required or is the claim a three month claim looking at the overall three months? The HMRC man would clearly not have had a chance with those, but I wonder if anyone else has seen anything on this or worked it out.
The item I am most muddled about and which does not seem covered much by the discussion is what constitutes 'lost income because of coronavirus' for the self employed. If you are unable to work because of not being allowed to by social distancing rules the situation seems clear; but where, as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, your income simply falls considerably because of, for example, knock on effects in the economy, but you are not legally prevented from working, what is the situation with claiming SEISS and how will this be calculated? And does the self employed person need to carry out specific actions to enable themselves to qualify? Has the Government been more specific about the requirements? What will be the relationship between the amounts of profits lost and the grant? What will need to be included in the actual claim when the forms are issued? There seems an awful lot of detail missing presently.
All things that claim they are 'for our protection' should be looked at very carefully. The detailed meaning of both 'our' and 'protection' is of course critical. The resulting information from the chips will become power, as we now know from Google/Facebook etc, and we all know what power does to people.
I suggest that, if this is to be allowed (and I think it should not be) , all people in charge of an organisation using employee implants(CEOs and the like) should have to have, as a legal requirement, an implant (identical to the employee one) in themselves which is monitorable by the employees. If is to be legal I think that all MPs (and above all the Prime Minister) also should have an implant, the data from which is accessible to the public.
Thank you, Rebecca, for listening to the Webinar; it does not look much of an update from HMRC. I thought we already knew what was said Is there anything new (or helpful) at all in this?
Is this really going to happen? GDPR then MTD, what next It's clearly going to be seamless like exiting the EEC. Aaaaarrrrgh! Sole practitioner nightmare.
HMRC's 'No slippage' is peculiarly relevant today as I look out of the window.
If I was born before 6th April 1945, I would now be 72 years old and have been entitled to my state pension before 6th April 2010. How is this person who is being asked for further 5 years contributions before 2027 affected by this 39/45 year rule? I have not seen the original Anne Accountant post.
Thank you Rebecca for a simple set of suggestions.
1. Raise CT. Sounds sensible, the rate is probably now too low. This does connect with dividend tax of course.
2. Removing ER will cause shock horror but the CGT rates are now low. Is ER really the reason people go into business?
3. Capping PPR will be fun to get through Parliament.
4. Aligning NI rates will upset Ian D-S and his white van man. Arguments against it are a bit feeble.
5. Increasing dividend tax. Why impose a general extra tax on income of this sort only? What about property income and interest? Possibly raise it on 'close company' dividends only as this was surely intended to counter the NIC savings for such companies.
6. A statutory test for self-employment would be interesting as the details of it might well be fitted up by HMRC/Phil if noone is paying attention.
7. Charge more Council Tax to valuable houses. At what level should this kick in? Basically soak the rich and, I suppose, why not? Becomes then increasingly a property tax rather than a council services tax.
8. Reform of SDLT. The whole thing has just been done over and it is pretty complicated. For heavens sake leave it be. Some of the more awful complications of it might be removed.
My rural broadband speed (synchronisation) is found on test to be 600k. The actual download speed for files is about 90k per second. It just about works and breaks down with some frequency. What is this nonsense about 10Meg synchronisation? I am about three miles from the cabinet which is fibre enabled. I am not isolated as there are plenty of houses on the route. Why doesn't the government simply provide fibre to everyone? It is now a basic necessity of life like tarmac roads. Infrastructure is terribly important. No wonder the UK economy is incredibly inefficient.
My answers
Please, if you could, let me have the link to this tool. I have tried google searching it but nothing turns up.
Quickbooks just ran a free 30 minute webinar, headed by a man from HMRC, on the self-employed scheme. He was using the 21st April version of the guidance not the 1st May one and, in response to a very limited number of questions, referred most of them to the guidance and did not know if the grant was net or gross of tax, thus clearly had not even read the very short guidance. I think Quickbooks have shot themselves in the foot with that one. He did however say and I quote, to the best of my note taking ability, you can claim if you are 'suffering as a result of coronavirus'. I had three questions, none of which were taken up, 1) How much profit do you have to lose to be able to claim? 2) ref the 1/5/20 version examples, if you lose a lot of income from a customer, but still so some work for the customer, does this qualify you for a claim? and 3) Is the claim a monthly claim with monthly qualification required or is the claim a three month claim looking at the overall three months? The HMRC man would clearly not have had a chance with those, but I wonder if anyone else has seen anything on this or worked it out.
The item I am most muddled about and which does not seem covered much by the discussion is what constitutes 'lost income because of coronavirus' for the self employed. If you are unable to work because of not being allowed to by social distancing rules the situation seems clear; but where, as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, your income simply falls considerably because of, for example, knock on effects in the economy, but you are not legally prevented from working, what is the situation with claiming SEISS and how will this be calculated? And does the self employed person need to carry out specific actions to enable themselves to qualify? Has the Government been more specific about the requirements? What will be the relationship between the amounts of profits lost and the grant? What will need to be included in the actual claim when the forms are issued? There seems an awful lot of detail missing presently.
As regards the job retention scheme, what will happen where, for example. directors do not have a contract of employment?
I am reminded of Mike Palin wanting to be a lion tamer in that Monty Python sketch.
All things that claim they are 'for our protection' should be looked at very carefully. The detailed meaning of both 'our' and 'protection' is of course critical. The resulting information from the chips will become power, as we now know from Google/Facebook etc, and we all know what power does to people.
I suggest that, if this is to be allowed (and I think it should not be) , all people in charge of an organisation using employee implants(CEOs and the like) should have to have, as a legal requirement, an implant (identical to the employee one) in themselves which is monitorable by the employees. If is to be legal I think that all MPs (and above all the Prime Minister) also should have an implant, the data from which is accessible to the public.
Thank you, Rebecca, for listening to the Webinar; it does not look much of an update from HMRC. I thought we already knew what was said Is there anything new (or helpful) at all in this?
Is this really going to happen? GDPR then MTD, what next It's clearly going to be seamless like exiting the EEC. Aaaaarrrrgh! Sole practitioner nightmare.
HMRC's 'No slippage' is peculiarly relevant today as I look out of the window.
State Pension NIC Contributions.
If I was born before 6th April 1945, I would now be 72 years old and have been entitled to my state pension before 6th April 2010. How is this person who is being asked for further 5 years contributions before 2027 affected by this 39/45 year rule? I have not seen the original Anne Accountant post.
I don't get it.
Thank you Rebecca for a simple set of suggestions.
1. Raise CT. Sounds sensible, the rate is probably now too low. This does connect with dividend tax of course.
2. Removing ER will cause shock horror but the CGT rates are now low. Is ER really the reason people go into business?
3. Capping PPR will be fun to get through Parliament.
4. Aligning NI rates will upset Ian D-S and his white van man. Arguments against it are a bit feeble.
5. Increasing dividend tax. Why impose a general extra tax on income of this sort only? What about property income and interest? Possibly raise it on 'close company' dividends only as this was surely intended to counter the NIC savings for such companies.
6. A statutory test for self-employment would be interesting as the details of it might well be fitted up by HMRC/Phil if noone is paying attention.
7. Charge more Council Tax to valuable houses. At what level should this kick in? Basically soak the rich and, I suppose, why not? Becomes then increasingly a property tax rather than a council services tax.
8. Reform of SDLT. The whole thing has just been done over and it is pretty complicated. For heavens sake leave it be. Some of the more awful complications of it might be removed.
My rural broadband speed (synchronisation) is found on test to be 600k. The actual download speed for files is about 90k per second. It just about works and breaks down with some frequency. What is this nonsense about 10Meg synchronisation? I am about three miles from the cabinet which is fibre enabled. I am not isolated as there are plenty of houses on the route. Why doesn't the government simply provide fibre to everyone? It is now a basic necessity of life like tarmac roads. Infrastructure is terribly important. No wonder the UK economy is incredibly inefficient.