Is this not excellent news for taxpayers. HMRC are clearly indicating that if the taxpayer has more than a 20% chance of winning a case they will not pursue it to tribunal. I have always said that if there is less than 50% chance of winning it is probably not worth carrying on, clearly I have been too pessimistic.
I don’t know about Gone Sailing, but personally I use a flat earth map to navigate. Unless you are a long haul airline pilot, a maritime navigator or an astronaut then I bet you do as well. Even satnavs show a flat earth approximation. Charts of coastal waters are certainly flat earth maps.
Come on, old chap. don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, double entry bookkeeping is still a valuable tool for establishing how a business is progressing.
That is my point, Ken, how is a lay person supposed to know that, for instance, calling himself a second hand car dealer for tax purposes is a “no no” when they have been trained by us to perform all sorts of nonsensical, and indeed fake, manoeuvres to comply with unfathomable tax requirements.
Trouble is, Ken, that what you probably told him to do would sound equally ludicrous and artificial to a lay person.
“Before you pay money from the company bank account to your bank account you must hold a meeting with yourself and declare a dividend, don’t forget to ask yourself if there are enough reserves in the company to pay the dividend, then record the fact that the meeting has taken place.”
I am fairly old, so I can remember when CTT came in and there were exempt transfers between spouses for the first time.
We had a lot of discussion over widowed or divorced fathers marrying their sons fiancees, then transferring assets and getting divorced.
I have never heard that it happened in practice, so I expect these new laws will make no difference.
All the consanguinity laws apply to civil partnerships as much as to marriage (the Burden sisters, for instance, were prevented from entering a civil partnership) so they will presumably apply to same sex marriages as well.
[Easier this one, "I had an interview once where I was asked, 'what is the probability that two dogs in the UK will have the same number of hairs' - that's even more like those Google questions" - at a guess, a tad over zero, possibly only a smidgen! Although, on the Discworld it would a million to one, in which case it would be virtually certain they would have exactly the same number.
I think you are wrong on that one, old chap. I would say it approaches unity. It is similar to the odds of getting 5 pat hands in any random deal of 25 cards or finding 2 people with the same birthday in a random group of 50.
So can anybody out there spot any problem with the following suggestion, as taxes are a matter for member states nationally, and not an EU wide matter, aren't they, especially for charitable donations?
Change UK tax law so as to restrict UK Tax relief [for charitable giving] to donations made to charities domiciled (including having objects clauses restricted to charitable works in UK only) in the UK and regulated by the UK Charities Commission.
Yes. As mentioned previously it would be in violation of various EU treaties which supersede British Law, specifically in that it would provide discriminatory treatment against equivalent EU, but non-UK charities.
Could you please provide me with a more specific/precise EU reference(s), e.g. in the form of Article A of the Treaty of B, of Date C? And if possible/necessary, a rationale?
My impression that I was asked if i wanted to join a "Common Market" in the 1970s; consequently, as there should then apparently have been no market in charities, I do not yet see any basis for denying "discriminatory treatment against EU, but non-UK charities", and I would be glad to be better informed/educated in this charities area, please.
Thank you in advance!
There was an EU case Hein Persche v Finanzamt Lüdenscheid (European Court of Justice, C318/07),
The court’s ruling states:
1. ...
2. Article 56 EC precludes legislation of a Member State by virtue of which, as regards gifts made to bodies recognised as having charitable status, the benefit of a deduction for tax purposes is allowed only in respect of gifts made to bodies established in that Member State, without any possibility for the taxpayer to show that a gift made to a body established in another Member State satisfies the requirements imposed by that legislation for the grant of such a benefit.
As a matter of interest the law was actually changed in the finance act 2010, schedule 6, to bring EU charities within the donations allowable for gift aid - prior to that date the old case of Camille & Henry Dreyfus Foundation Inc v IR Commissioners (1955) 36 TC 126 applied to all charities, anywhere in the world, except in the UK.
My answers
House Elf
As she acts like a house elf it is proper that she has been made a Dobby.
Lies. damn lies and statistics
Is this not excellent news for taxpayers. HMRC are clearly indicating that if the taxpayer has more than a 20% chance of winning a case they will not pursue it to tribunal. I have always said that if there is less than 50% chance of winning it is probably not worth carrying on, clearly I have been too pessimistic.
Or am I missing something!
Well der!
I don’t know about Gone Sailing, but personally I use a flat earth map to navigate. Unless you are a long haul airline pilot, a maritime navigator or an astronaut then I bet you do as well. Even satnavs show a flat earth approximation. Charts of coastal waters are certainly flat earth maps.
Come on, old chap. don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, double entry bookkeeping is still a valuable tool for establishing how a business is progressing.
That is my point, Ken, how is a lay person supposed to know that, for instance, calling himself a second hand car dealer for tax purposes is a “no no” when they have been trained by us to perform all sorts of nonsensical, and indeed fake, manoeuvres to comply with unfathomable tax requirements.
Trouble is, Ken, that what you probably told him to do would sound equally ludicrous and artificial to a lay person.
“Before you pay money from the company bank account to your bank account you must hold a meeting with yourself and declare a dividend, don’t forget to ask yourself if there are enough reserves in the company to pay the dividend, then record the fact that the meeting has taken place.”
Evasion not avoidance
This is a case of evasion, not avoidance, what he was doing had no semblance of legality.
nothing new
I am fairly old, so I can remember when CTT came in and there were exempt transfers between spouses for the first time.
We had a lot of discussion over widowed or divorced fathers marrying their sons fiancees, then transferring assets and getting divorced.
I have never heard that it happened in practice, so I expect these new laws will make no difference.
All the consanguinity laws apply to civil partnerships as much as to marriage (the Burden sisters, for instance, were prevented from entering a civil partnership) so they will presumably apply to same sex marriages as well.
Odds
I think you are wrong on that one, old chap. I would say it approaches unity. It is similar to the odds of getting 5 pat hands in any random deal of 25 cards or finding 2 people with the same birthday in a random group of 50.
As we used to say
Blood is thicker than water, but Mr. X is even thicker than that.
Hein Persche v Finanzamt Lüdenscheid
There was an EU case Hein Persche v Finanzamt Lüdenscheid (European Court of Justice, C318/07),
The court’s ruling states:
1. ...
2. Article 56 EC precludes legislation of a Member State by virtue of which, as regards gifts made to bodies recognised as having charitable status, the benefit of a deduction for tax purposes is allowed only in respect of gifts made to bodies established in that Member State, without any possibility for the taxpayer to show that a gift made to a body established in another Member State satisfies the requirements imposed by that legislation for the grant of such a benefit.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007J0318:EN:HTML
As a matter of interest the law was actually changed in the finance act 2010, schedule 6, to bring EU charities within the donations allowable for gift aid - prior to that date the old case of Camille & Henry Dreyfus Foundation Inc v IR Commissioners (1955) 36 TC 126 applied to all charities, anywhere in the world, except in the UK.