Member Since: 28th Nov 2005
23rd Jul 2020
I think the idea is that if you're expecting a bundle of returns to submit, you can do them all at the same time once a day, rather than piecemeal.
19th Jun 2020
For the avoidance of doubt, can I clarify something. If an employer has staff who he hasn't paid since let say the end of April (because the business had to shut it's doors), but also hasn't got a furlough letter signed since they last got paid, I was led to believe that the employer still has a legal obligation to pay the employees their wages for this period under contract law, until such time they have gone through the furlough process.
Or, to put it another way, they cannot today make a backdated furlough claim from 1 May to date if they don't have the correct furlough letters signed as on 1 May.
This is a pub, where for some reason a couple of the staff were not provided with the appropriate letters to sign at the right time, and since the end of April haven't worked or been paid anything. The employer put them on furlough from approximately mid May, but for around 6 weeks they've not been paid but were not furloughed.
8th Jun 2020
Wonder if the travel was via broomstick and that's why it was so expensive?...
17th Apr 2020
Spoke to Barclays - they reckon that the reason for the immediate low numbers of loans being given is that they have less staff dealing with the applications, the underwriters have had to relearn the deals on offer, and so it's taking longer to process.
I had thought that the loan conditions were not being explained to applicants well enough, as the loans can only be used to fund ongoing costs rather than creating a buffer 'just in case' or to fund wages, but apparently not...
19th Mar 2020
Thanks to those who have responded.
The MVL was in early March and having checked on CH it is registered but as yet no other actions are recorded.
Yes, the worry is that the distribution will be deemed to be income rather than capital, but I suppose that the disclosure of this is part of the SAITR process, so if an argument could be created around current circumstances, the disposal could be reported as CGT at 10% and then we wait to see if HMRC queries it, with plenty of caveats in any client correspondence.
And yes, there could well be an issue generally with IR35 anyway. I understand that the end user was using the April 2020 changes as a blanket method to avoid taking on contractors or having to run any risks of being hit with the PAYE cost if there were any HMRC queries, as many big firms have done. Realistically, if there was an underlying issue with IR35 then I'd agree that setting up a new company is just kicking the can down the road to a degree. I have raised this point with the client but not had any response as yet, and ultimately, all of this may be for nothing...
31st Jan 2020
Thanks to all who have replied so far. The entire property was definitely 'wholly lived in' originally, and thereafter, was split use. The 16%/84% allocation is on actual occupation based on area of the property, during the last 5 years.
The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to accept that 100% PPR is available for the final 18 months, given the wording of 222 - 224.
29th Jan 2020
Last time I was in a similar situation, I rang and spoke to HMRC who advised that if penalties were triggered, they would always accept an appeal to have these reduced to nil.
They were obviously not aware of their own guidance as highlighted by Montrose, although this was someone at a High Net Worth office, who tend to deal with things a little differently...
16th Jan 2020
Having done more digging, I have found this in Tolley (Simon's Taxes) under a CGT heading which mirrors s.62 (4):
C1.206A Personal representatives: transfer of assets to a legatee
On the disposal of assets by the personal representatives to a legatee, in most cases:
(a) no chargeable gain accrues to the personal representatives; and
(b) the legatee is treated as if the personal representatives' acquisition of the asset had been his acquisition of it1
Therefore, the legatee's date of acquisition is the date of death and the acquisition value is the market value at the date of death.
This suggests that we use date of death for value/base cost and date of ownership.
My two main concerns are ER and BPR, so want to be happy with the date ownership began for each of these.
13th Jan 2020
I'd agree with all on their comments thus far. You don't provide any additional detail but like others, I'm assuming that you've considered the initial facts and concluded that a taxable gain may well arise due to the size and nature of the plot/property in question.
Your client needs to get in touch with a good valuer who has experience of dealing with what sounds like a large estate type home with extensive grounds and gardens. They need to review the overall footprint of the land to determine the underlying values of each part of the house/garden/grounds - for example, if there is a long drive way to the house within the garden and there is a grass border either side, these grassy areas are probably worth less than say a large lawned area. Similarly, if there are large areas that have limited or no vehicular access, this could also devalue them compared to, say, a lawn that was edged by a simple fence line that had a road running by it. They should also consider whether any of the trees on the land have protection orders preventing them from being felled, as this could diminish any development value placed on a swathe of turf.
This sort of report should then allow the cost of the property to be apportioned between the relevant areas (whether inside or outside the permitted area), as the starting point for any CGT calculations.
If HMRC opens an enquiry into the PPR claim, and the amounts are considerable, they will probably involve the Valuation Office, to make a decision on the value of the non PPR element. In my experience this takes a long time and they may simply come back with an estimated value for the entirety and just apportion it on an area basis as they see fit. This is unlikely to take into account any of the above, but these factors can be pointed out to HMRC/VO as required, and negotiations can commence.
The VO relies on the Lady Rook tax case in these sort of cases as their backup for disallowing a PPR claim for big garden. You'll need to read the case or a summary of it, as you'll need to find as many elements of it as possible you can refute in your case, otherwise HMRC will push the VO allocation of apportioned area/cost.
Oh, and I'd suggest that your client takes out some fee insurance if they haven't already, as we know HMRC love a juicy CGT job...
21st Oct 2019
Was speaking to a contractor client on Friday. Their end-user (one of the big banks) has issued the same sort of missive as the others, but in an attempt to buck the trend, have also agreed to offer the contractors a higher day rate if they'll work via an umbrella company, to compensate the worker for their trouble.
The end-user believes that if they don't do this, their quality of output would suffer and they see this as an acceptable way forward. They also believe that it will not be long before big end-users realise that the threat of imposing IR35-esque charges and the big noise caused by the 2020 changes will die down pretty quickly, and that those with well worded contracts will be back to where they were within the year.
If this is the case, there is probably a valid argument to keeping your PSC intact, maybe preparing a set of dormant accounts at a fraction of the cost of a full set of trading accounts etc. and riding out the storm for a little while, rather than winding up the company now, incurring costs, and then having to set up another one if things change for the better.