Member Since: 15th Apr 2019
9th Mar 2020
I am assuming the accountant prepared and filed the tax return in question? If so, why on earth did they agree to it? I accept the return is the "taxpayers" and it is down to them to self-assess their income and expenses but surely the accountant must have pointed out that the expenses in question were not allowable. If the client insisted on still claiming them I personally would have said to the client they needed to file the return directly and not had anything to do with it.
I hope the accountant had plenty of file notes showing they told the client what they were doing was wrong.
11th Nov 2019
Surely though, one of the points behind self-assessment and the "simplified" tax system we supposedly have in the UK is that an individual should not have to resort to speaking to a professional advisor in order to complete what (on the face of it) should have been a simple tax return.
The taxpayer reported the income per his P60 (which is what the HMRC portal requests), having raised with his employer that he thought the P60 was incorrect and been advised that it was not. Being a foreign national as well I can entirely understand his position. I think this is a case where HMRC should have used some discretion and suspended the penalty.
11th Nov 2019
From the way the article reads, the taxpayer was not issued with the P45, only the employer as a means of transferring the payroll data in house (why the accountant issued a P45 for an ongoing payroll I don't know).
If this is true, he would not have been able to insert P45 data. Also, the P60 should have shown pay from previous employments, which may have flagged this issue up as well.
It would seem that the fault lies squarely with the information that the taxpayer was provided by his employer/payroll department.
4th Oct 2019
I have a client who provides both Aesthetic and genuine medical procedures (registered ENT consultant). When I reviewed her VAT position I was advised that it not only depends on the type of procedure that is being done but also who she contracts with as to whether the service is VAT'able or not.
She carries out genuine medical procedure to treat skin cancers, hearing impairments, etc. I was advised that if she contracts directly with the patient it is VAT exempt, but if she contracts with either an NHS hospital or BUPA/AXA PPP etc to do the same thing it is liable to standard rate VAT. If it is the same treatment being given, why the difference!!
6th Sep 2019
When I first started in Tax I was told by a lecturer that the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is the thickness of a prison wall, i.e. tax avoidance is legal but tax evasion is not.
On this basis, and maybe I am the only one, I do not see that these people have actually done anything wrong. Whilst some of these schemes were contrived and aggressive tax avoidance, they were just that TAX AVOIDANCE. They took advantage of poorly drafted legislation to minimise the amount of tax an individual paid. This is something almost every accountant or tax advisor has done over the years. How many of us have told client's to take a small salary and bigger dividends to save tax and NI, is that not "tax avoidance"?
If they continued to use these schemes once the legislation was changed then I have no sympathy, but all those who used it when it was perfectly valid tax avoidance and are now being hit with significant tax bills on a retrospective nature, I do have sympathy with.
As I said, I may be the only one but that is my honest opinion.
13th May 2019
Just wanted to check I am understanding the last part correctly (transfer between spouses). In the example given the property was not lived in, they then moved in and then sold. Only the period from moving in to date of sale got PRR.
I assume then that if the position was the other way round, lived in by A as main res, moves out and rents, gets married, then transfers property to H/W. H/W "acquires" A's PRR for the initial period despite never having lived there. Am I understanding that correctly?