In no particular order :
'Nine in the afternoon' - Panic! At The Disco
'Night driving' - The Amazons
'American Candy' - The Maine
'Save It For The Bedroom' - Youmeatsix
'Fat Lip' - Sum 41
'Interlude' - Attack Attack!
'The River' - Good Charlotte
'Hear Me Now' - Hollywood Undead
'Honey' - Mooseblood
'What's My Age Again? - Blink 182
Thanks to all who have commented - all noted.
Aside from any inference from the income tax/VAT treatment on the overall picture, the client does provide full services, hence the initial suggestion this was a BPR qualifying activity.
The Ross case is interesting as it seems services were provided but via a third party to a degree, and perhaps this is why it fell down. In my client's case, the services are provided by them alone, but I appreciate that this doesn't mean BPR is a clear cut thing.
The background to this one is unfortunately more complex (involving a partnership and a trust, some of which I do not act for, hence the difficulty in directing how the income has been described in earlier years), but the replies have given food for thought.
From the ones that I've seen, the client has been self employed for years but HMRCs records don't have the appropriate link to the NIC records, so HMRC doesn't know they are self-employed and due to pay Cl 2 NIC.
This has been an issue since HMRC started to collect Cl 2 NIC on the return in 2015-16, but HMRC do seem have got their act together on these cases now. If you ring HMRC they will either correct the position over the phone if they can i.e. they already have details of the self-employed source with no 'link', or will provide you with the number to call the NICO to do something similar where there is no trace of the source at the NICO.
The side effect of the latter is of course is that you may find that clients have not been correctly registered for Cl 2 NIC at some point in the past, not been paying anything each year and so subsequently, they have huge holes in their contribution records. If so, they may find NICO sending them a bill for unpaid Cl 2 NIC for earlier years.
Still, this would be cheaper than paying voluntary Cl 3 NIC for those years!
Thanks Portia - TBH, paying the Class 3 is probably cheaper than paying 2 and 4 by a few hundred quid.
But what about the partnership return - one is still needed to report the rent, but to 5 April or 20 July?
This is where I was coming from - taken in isolation, each tranche of costs would probably have been ok, but given that it needed all of this doing before letting, I'd agree that reduction in price would be wanted, hence me leaning towards capital.
I saw the other query, but this situation is different in that the property hasn't been purchased at a lower price and then had work done, it has always been owned in it previous state, and was no doubt given a probate value at the time it was acquired to reflect M/V at that time.
Also, PIM2020 referred to in that query doesn't look at this sort of thing specifically, although it does talk about repairs etc. after a property is acquired. The problem is, it starts off by saying that 'Repairs to reinstate a worn or dilapidated asset are usually deductible as revenue expenditure'. It then refers to these costs being incurred shortly after acquisition and that this doesn't always mean capital treatment and then goes on with some examples.
The value of the property and the annual rent are not at either extreme ends of the spectrum. I think on balance, I'm best to treat the date he left the old home as the effective date of acquisition of a rental property, and considered the value at that point compared to the value once the work was done. The value's bound to have increased, so the work will be improvements/capital.
Well, that's another thing, isn't it - funny how clients suddenly decide to move back sometimes?!
The rental property they are in is a big place and linked to other concerns that the client is involved with, and is something he may ultimately inherit one day. In making their mark on it (in line with the lease in place) they have already installed a new kitchen, the cost of which runs into hundreds of thousands of pounds, and have other plans too. I've left out all the back story to this to keep it simple, but there is no chance of them moving back into the old home again!
The old home would've still been worth quite a lot without the work being done (also quite a big place but quite old), but I don't have a valuation of it either before or after the work was done.
Yes - I think the message is that the accounts should reflect the PAYE bonus element generally, but where this hasn't been possible, a tax adjustment on the return will suffice with a note to that effect.
As a salaried partner, even with their 5% profit allocation, they must not appear on the partnership return as a self-employed partner, so cannot allocate the 5% to them in this way.