Its simply another version of pub gossip - some may be boxing clever (can you buy autocad on a cd???) - as to how legitimate the claims are you would need to go through with a fine tooth comb - notice 733 has more than enough useful pointers in that regard - you seem to be spot on with your summary that these bods sound more like fraudsters than people in business - its a bit ridiculous anyone making up fake stuff when its the vat office that is monitoring the situation - perhaps some bods dont see all "stealing" as being the same. Who knows perhaps our random tribunals process would even side with the trader here if they bought something they didnt like it and sent it back (or changed their mind before being delivered).
"and also order goods through amazon but cancel it an never pay. "
The issue here is that he would probably be £5k a year better off by being VAT registered. That's a lot of money for a small business.
From HMRC's point of view it's not a lot but when added together there are at least 10 doing this in the same place, then it becomes more significant.
We're a regulated firm with a separate limited company to whom bookkeeping and payroll services are subcontracted. The limited company is not regulated by our regulatory body, though our regulatory body are aware of the arrangement and agreed it.
The clients do not engage with the firm directly, we subcontract work to it. The clients are all clients of the regulated firm, the limited company earns fees from us for the subcontracted work and pays the wages of the staff who do that work.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's a fairly common setup.
So wouldn't you need separate practising certificates, PI and money laundering registration for this?
If so what benefit is there to you?
I bet HMRC have no idea there is £450k overdrawn.
I imagine the owner will dissolve the company without fully calculating the liability and therefore without informing HMRC.
I would guess this could be the case.
Although, a MLR would have to be made if this were the case and you would think that Hmrc would object given the numbers.
I wonder how quickly hmrc would move after a report is made- anyone know?
I bet HMRC have no idea there is £450k overdrawn.
I imagine the owner will dissolve the company without fully calculating the liability and therefore without informing HMRC.
I would guess this could be the case.
Although, a MLR would have to be made if this were the case and you would think that Hmrc would object given the numbers.
I wonder how quickly hmrc would move after a report is made- anyone know?
If someone offered me £200 and/or a day off when I was 18 I'd probably have headed straight to the nearest disco.
I would feel pretty peeved if a work colleague was paid £200 for a jab and others received 0. At 18 that would have been a lot of money and I can see that going down like a lead balloon with the rest of the staff.
It's not about dictating, it's about incentivising. Offer everyone a bonus for acheiving targets - some will work harder to do so, others will decide that the work/life balance doesn't merit it. Offer everyone a bonus, or extra holiday, if they choose to be vaccinated. It then becomes the individual's choice.
I wouldn't think you be able to get away with this if someone took this to tribunal.
I think she is entitled to not want the vaccine and I don't think as an employer that you are entitled to treat her differently on that point.
With the masks, I suppose if it's not illegal then I think you may struggle to enforce that.
At some point things will be back to normal and people will need to get on with it.
I wouldn't be happy with her attitude which does seem selfish and so I would expect her to have approached this in a different way.
Probably a pragmatic solution in the specific circumstances of your client.
But my starting-point would be the other way round - that, by default, a grant is taxable unless specifically granted (poor pun) non-taxable status (like CJRS).
As Jon says, however, there is no definitive statement out there on this type of grant - which is why, if the result wasn't as you say tax-neutral in this case, I would treat it as taxable (and adjust later if guidance is published).
My answers
The issue here is that he would probably be £5k a year better off by being VAT registered. That's a lot of money for a small business.
From HMRC's point of view it's not a lot but when added together there are at least 10 doing this in the same place, then it becomes more significant.
So wouldn't you need separate practising certificates, PI and money laundering registration for this?
If so what benefit is there to you?
I hadn't heard of this previously.
Just taken a look and seems to do the job.
I would guess this could be the case.
Although, a MLR would have to be made if this were the case and you would think that Hmrc would object given the numbers.
I wonder how quickly hmrc would move after a report is made- anyone know?
I would guess this could be the case.
Although, a MLR would have to be made if this were the case and you would think that Hmrc would object given the numbers.
I wonder how quickly hmrc would move after a report is made- anyone know?
I would feel pretty peeved if a work colleague was paid £200 for a jab and others received 0. At 18 that would have been a lot of money and I can see that going down like a lead balloon with the rest of the staff.
I wouldn't think you be able to get away with this if someone took this to tribunal.
I think she is entitled to not want the vaccine and I don't think as an employer that you are entitled to treat her differently on that point.
With the masks, I suppose if it's not illegal then I think you may struggle to enforce that.
At some point things will be back to normal and people will need to get on with it.
I wouldn't be happy with her attitude which does seem selfish and so I would expect her to have approached this in a different way.
This is the exact way that I look at any grants.
?