Member Since: 15th Apr 2019
Perrys Chartered Accountants
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?