Member Since: 11th May 1998
17th Mar 2021
Go for the Tesla - you only live once! I have a Model X and I love it.
17th Mar 2021
Where does the legislation state that a business had to be "financially" adversely affected? My business was adversely affected, because I was shielding and the office was locked with just one member of staff working therein. So there were inefficiencies due to not being able to have face to face discussions with my team and my clients were definitely inconvenienced as they had to telephone before visits and could no longer have face to face meetings with me or my staff.
17th Mar 2021
We have had one of these. It seems to be way over the top and asks questions about whether a percentage fee was charged by the accountant or a fixed amount and how much. Also, whether the accountant asked the client to provide records in order to prepare the return. I assume this has resulted from the apparent large number of fraudulent claims that have been made by certain agents. There are specific references to CIS but our client is an employed doctor whose repayment arose simply because of higher rate relief on pension contributions.
ID documents are also requested.
If no answer is received the letter threatens that the client will be removed from the self-assessment system!
5th Mar 2021
Thanks again but as mentioned in my question, the attendance at the office is sporadic, maybe once a month on average to deal with premises and equipment issues and but there is no pattern or regularity and it is not therefore, in my view, habitual. In the Dr Samadian case it was the habitual nature of the travel between the home business base and the private hospitals that determined that the travel was disallowed. I do appreciate that the fact that the pattern of travelling before this year and the intentions for next year could mean that the current temporary year also should be treated as ordinary commuting. However, I think there is at least an argument for looking at this year on its own.
In my client's case, even if the visits to/from the office were excluded, the mileage pattern has still changed to about 50% private compared with 70% private previously, so does anyone have any views on the second and third parts of my original question?
4th Mar 2021
Thanks for the replies. He is self-employed and it is his own office. Sorry, I did, of course, mean FYA rather than AIA.
23rd Dec 2020
Sally, I wouldn't mind betting that he had been trading before 1 June 1994 in which case he would have been taxed on the previous year basis in 1994-95 and 1995-96. 1996-97 was the transitional year and had to be based on an average of the profits for the two years ended in the tax year i.e. the two years ended 30 June 1996, so £18,167.
1996-97 would then be on the current year basis i.e. £15,094.
Transitional overlap relief would have been created in 1996-97 of 279/365 x £15,094 = £11,537, assuming your figures are before capital allowances.
If he in fact commenced on 1 July 1994 then as far as I can recall, 1994-95 and 1995-96 would have been taxed under normal current year basis commencement rules and an overlap would have arisen for the period 1 June 1994 to 5 April 1995 and there would not have been a 24 month averaging period. (Indeed, this would be greater than the maximum allowed 18-month accounting period, which is why I think the commencement was before 1 June 1994).
1994-95 and 1995-96 were before self-assessment so if you have only been getting your information from self-assessment records, it is not surprising that nothing is showing for those earlier years.
23rd Dec 2020
With a June year-end there must be nine months' worth of overlap relief.
9th Dec 2020
I have a client whose wife tried to register him for self-assessment but somehow registered for VAT instead. Could this be an accidental VAT registration?
27th Nov 2020
Can't you do it for them? See this:
24th Nov 2020
"Can the 19/20 losses be offset against 19/20 other income?" Not if cash basis has been used. Otherwise, yes or against 18/19 (and, if more advantageous, consider a s.72 Income Tax Act 2007 carry back claim).
"Can the 18/19 losses be offset against 18/19 other income by going back & amending the 18/19 return?" Not if cash basis has been used. Otherwise, yes or against 17/18 (and, if more advantageous, consider a s.72 Income Tax Act 2007 carry back claim).
"Is the balance of the 16/17 losses brought forward going to be lost if the business never becomes profitable or therefore closes down?" Yes