Thanks for the comments. There is no present thinking that it won't be viable or that it won't continue for a certain period. My "minimum trading requirement" was trying to obtain a "what if" scenario should trading not be as expected. They are hoping for a solid trade.
The thinking is as suggested £50k now outweighs the output VAT issues moving forward in their mind.
Thanks, I guess that's what I'm getting at in a broader sense. Is this a TOGC and therefore subject to these rules. I don't feel like it is as the new tenant is having nothing to do with the old one and there is no transfer/sale of anything.
Thanks for the replies. In this situation my client is a garden centre. The net turnover is obviously not the amount that customers have paid. If there were a non registered VAT business and looking at whether they should register this price (that the customer pays) is what would be looked at. So my question was how this trasnfers to the MTD legislation.
I should have said this is to prepare a VAT return.
Thanks, so the fact that the lessons are provided to children has no bearing?
Thanks, sorry if I was vague in the original question.
It's a limited company with employees carrying out tuition very much as a profit-making exercise for the company.
Tuition is carried out with both adults and children.
My understanding from research carried out was that in order to qualify as exempt it would need to be a non-profit status.
Also, a quick follow-up question. What about the lease costs pre-registration? So it was a new business (not going concern) and they didn't need to register until 85K was hit. Took about 6 months or so. The equipment was "leased" from day one. Can this VAT be reclaimed under the equipment on hand rules or not because it's being treated as a leaase?
Thanks for all the responses. It does seem like a finance lease to me. Each months payment has a VAT amount so it makes sense to treat for VAT purposes in the way suggested.
Thanks, would our client need to account for the VAT in these circumstances?
It's not fair at all. Nor is it logical. I don't know why one can't calculate a single figure covering the whole accounting year.
Not much help, but 2016 was a leap year.
This is my exact thinking. I don't understand why the AIA can go from 5ooK down to 200K yet they can only claim 30 due to their year end!
Most rules have some kind of logic applied to them. This one baffles me completely.