At the risk of being shouted down by those wishing to fight the good fight for their clients, this has always been the case, and trying to reverse engineer a claim (late or otherwise) for CGT disposal relief without being able to obtain at least £1 of income tax relief on the subscription in question can't work. I suspect that the FTT should've made it clearer at the time that although there may be a mechanism for late claims, this wouldn't be successful base on the information presented.
I agree that perhaps the legislation was intended not to penalise those who have no income tax liability to relieve, but unless the rules are changed, they are the rules.
I have tried in the past to argue with HMRC on a similar point involving dividends (when the 10% tax credit franked any basic rate liability) and where no income tax was due, but the concept of eligibility and availability when it comes to an EIS claim don't cut it - you must be able to obtain the relief.
Look at the order of the tax calculation process at s.23 ITA 2007 - EIS tax credits are given at step 6, after the tax due has been calculated, so if there isn't any tax due, relief isn't obtained.
* - other mint flavoured sweets are available....
Generally, advance assurance is requested for both SEIS and EIS at the same time on the same application unless it's specifically stated that this isn't the case.
Perhaps this has been part of the reason for the confusion when preparing the formal compliance statement in these cases?
Previously, assurance had to be sought separately but in recent years, a combined form is used.
I agree that it's vital to ensure that the correct paperwork is submitted, so that it matches the facts.
I was speaking to a Technical Inspector this morning, and I have to say that while he was unable to give a specific answer to my query (it's on Any Answers at the moment with around 100 reads and no comments either!), he was very helpful in his approach.
I suspect he was from the 'old school' of HMRC which probably explains his hands on and friendly technique albeit that we couldn't arrive at a definitive conclusion.
If you're looking for someone to help with design and rebranding, you might want to check out Behance (https://www.behance.net/) - it's like LinkedIn for designers and creatives. They publish there portfolios online so you can get a feel for what they can do. Just a thought....
Many clients wish to undertake advance assurance prior to the actual SEIS/EIS application being made. The advance assurance paperwork provides for both SEIS and EIS, so only one form is required.
Perhaps, if the SEIS and EIS forms were combined, this may prevent the risks outlined, as you would need to specify which type of relief you were applying for, rather than assuming the paperwork being completed was for the correct relief. Obviously, no guarantees this would prevent similar errors?
I agree that the rulings do seem harsh, but this predicament highlights the fundamental concept of 'SEIS before EIS'. If an advisor is not clear on what type of shares have been issued, they should clarify this before going down a route that clearly cannot be reversed.
The HNW Unit have been know to issue letters, confirming that they are satisfied with the return and that they will not be opening an enquiry into it. This does give the agent and the client some comfort, and so far, I've not had to test the strength of such a letter...
Anyone seen the last Terminator film? Software that's being used to link up everything we do tries to destroy the human race, and wins -well, sort of.
Is this where we're heading?!
Some aspects of Digital Tax Accounts (DTAs) are already happening in other countries for things like bank interest and salaries, but those countries still require a tax return to be submitted. Despite the headlines about the end of tax returns, it does look as though there will still be work for us all to do, checking that all the relevant information has been recorded etc. in one way or another.
It'll be interesting to see what will happen to the self employed person who comes to your office on 28 January with his bag of paperwork in hand, never having thought twice about what they should've been doing for the last year...
Roll on Budget Day 2016!
If you want to get a bank account....
This reminds me of the advert that was around in the 1980s that starred Aide Edmondson in his role as Vyvyan from The Young Ones. He was trying to get a bank account and he thought his appearance would hinder him from being successful.
The bank of course went on to make the point that it didn't matter what you looked like, but 30 years on and I do wonder if we as a profession would feel the same?
I don't have piercings (well, not any more) or a tattoo, but that is a personal choice made over time. The same can be said for those who do, but in our world of political correctness, it does seem that there is a difficult balance to maintain between infringing on personal choice and what others feel is acceptable for a particular situation.
Not wanting to side with either camp, I work with colleagues who have piercings and tattoos, but they are not obvious an so don't think it presents a problem. Someone with piercings/tattoos/body mods that are clearly visible, regardless of their nature, is likely to cause themselves difficulties working in a professional capacity, as others who are more outwardly conservative are likely to be seen as more presentable to clients and others.
Everyone can be an individual, but the problem is that too may people use this as a stick to beat 'the man' and want their rights to be upheld. In reality, is someone with that level of body adornment and general attitude about authority likely to be in this sort of position? It perhaps wouldn't be an issue if all your clients were in an industry that happily accepted this type of thing, but the chances of this are slim to none.
This isn't really a cue for every tattooed tax partner or senior accounts manager to chip in with their tales of how it does or doesn't impact on their business or otherwise - it's just an observation on how some areas of society's view on this type of thing hasn't really shifted that far, despite it becoming more acceptable generally, while not taking away the need for the individual to take a bit of responsibility for their actions, rather than trying to blame society or someone else.
I might have missed this elsewhere, but would I be right in thinking that the 3% SDLT increase on BTLs doesn't apply to Scotland? We have LBTT not SDLT, and the announcement is quiet on this front - should we expect to see hoards from the south buying up Scottish property instead of half of Cornwall?!