Thanks for your replies.
just musing really - I'll just use 260, which favours the EE
Thanks for this. Interesting. Of course you cannot take one without the other but I disagree that just because something "looks like" an office, it doesn't mean HMRC see it as an office the sense of the Act
There is no definition of office in the Act but in the HMRC Land & Property manual
"Meaning of ‘office’
‘Office’ is not defined in Schedule 10, but HMRC’s interpretation is that office used in this context means use for the administrative functions of the charity that are similar to those carried out in other organisations, such as personnel, payroll and general administration of the charity as a whole. For example, a building used as the administrative headquarters of a charity is considered an ‘office’, unlike a charity call centre set up solely for the purpose of collecting voluntary donations."
So the call centre operatives work in a office - this is not an "office" in the sense of the Act, this is charitable activity carried out that happens to be in a building that they might internally call an office - the disapplication would apply to this.
The administrator photocopying client documents is not general administration, it is specifically required to carry out the objects of the charity, to relieve the debt by copying and sending the docs to the creditors.
Many thanks for your replies.
Although it says 'relevant charitable purpose' it is referring to business/non business use - definition of it is in VATA 1994 schedule 8, group 5, note 6.
Actually having read on from there (note 10) it is clear that an apportionment can be made.
It doesn't go so far as to define an appropriate apportionment but I guess floor space is appropriate?
The de-minimus office 5% is difficult to define in a charity, I find. - say in a debt charity - is an administrator who photocopies client documents for sending off to creditors, "office" or is it charitable activity. I'd say the latter. But the finance officer who processes the payroll for the debt caseworker - office? It's all a bit grey...
hey ho, one for another time... in my case now I can justify the 5% as being de minimus
Thanks for your reply.
That's what I'd hoped. So for instance, if it is specific rooms where staff work then floor space allocation. And presumably shared spaces would be ignored from the pro rata %.
If it's open plan, perhaps workstations?
Is it the sort of thing that HMRC would be able to approve, a bit like. Special Method? To ensure they are happy with the approach.
Or is it actually up to the landlord to approve as they have to satisfy themselves of the correct vat treatment of the sales?
perfect thanks. I shall take a look
yeah so a bit more on the specifics. The parent is a charity the subsidiary is not.
There are genuinely no inter group supplies. The subsidiary has 3 part time staff and they lease their own building, certainly there are no invoices between the two. Aside from the £50k business income they also have non-business income of grants
I suppose the the counter argument to requiring 100 companies for 8 million turnover is, OK the accounting fees are large but the vat saving is larger. So although this is an argument it isn't the killer, as ultimately they *could* choose to have 100 companies (to note the subsidiary total turnover is no where near 8 million.
My argument to them is that even though the parent is a charity and vat registered, as they opted to tax a new build and now charge vat on the lease income, they could legitimately carry out all of the activity of the subsidiary as primary purpose trading (the sub activity is very similar to the main objectives just that they charge for it) so therefore what is the benefit of having a sub (charity 3 million income sub £100k so limited risk of having in one pot)
There argument back to me was they would have to charge vat on the £50k so why bother merging. I don't really want to say to them hey this is fine and by the way the you can just keep setting up new companies - but of course if it is fine then so be it.
My best shot then is the anti avoidance measures, others have mentioned. Could you point in in the right direction of these?
Thanks for your replies.
Yes I'm asking about a true 12 month rolling period.
SSP is a separate conversation. I'm just thinking about contractual sick pay.
So I think so far, there is agreement from you two, that in effect the full pay resets for scenario 1.
Interesting. See, I think it's
1 - B
2 - A
Then in effect scenario 3 (the re run of 2) is back to B again. So there's a debate about scenario 1 but interesting also, for scenario 2, that even if they returned for just a short period of time in the December they would be eligible for full benefit again whereas the continuous one gets nothing.
Re scenario 1 - I think they would only be eligible again for full pay if they went off in week 9 of the second January. I understand your view - looking back over 12 months they have only had 3 full and 4 half so must be full again but I *think* the 7 weeks off sick is taken as read, that anything more than 4 should be at half even though they've only actually had 3 at full.
Or am I wrong...
Thanks for your responses (been away on holiday hence delay in replying)
thanks all. I'll suggest they update the software to be on the safe side.