Retired. but still a trustee of a charity, and work on a relative's private company
I presume the charity will make a return to HMRC of the repaid contributions.
Suppose he asked the charity to transfer his contributions to another charity. He would not get further relief for the second charity, so HMRC are not out of pocket.
I love it when the moderators put the asterisks in the wrong place!!
Not sure what the clerical term is, but the medical term for cremation certificates is "ash cash".
Not really germane to the discussion, but in this area of the country they are notoriously direct. Years ago, an undertaker, (all conducted respctfully and sensitively") was overheard asking a widow on the phone "How d'you want 'im, buried or burnt?"
It would seem even God cannot help you when it comes to MTD.
At a recent agent briefing over MTD the HMRC guy claimed the driver behind MTD was they see the tax black hole comes from sole trader unrepresented end of the market and not the bandits who salt £m's off overseas.
Perhaps this could bring in a whole black market of weddings and funerals performed for cash "no questions asked"
God help us all.
Your last paragraph is purely hypothetical, of course! Anyone in that position would know better than to have a retired chartered accountant as his treasurer!
You are right about HMRC hitting the little bloke because the big bloke can afford counsel to hit back. HMRC's attitude is monstrous bullying. I am all for tax avoidance, but this is tax evasion legalised by double tax treaties.
and there was us waiting for the consultation response! that didn't make much difference.
what makes you think we will learn much during the budget?
HMRC are trying to make everything a last minute cock[***]-up.
They don't have to try.
Tim Vane wrote:
Are you just making stuff up to be awkward?
No, mine was a genuine problem. Try not to be sarcastic.
I suppose I can take comfort in seeing no one else knows either.
I'm glad I misunderstood your post.
I suppose the comment about elderly people being drowned at birth was meant to be ironic.
The elderly are themselves part of the state, paid NI all their working lives, and if they are no longer paying income tax they still pay VAT, IPT, SDLT, excise duty as much as anyone else. There is no logic in the state refusing to pay for their care , when it pays their state pension, prescriptions, hospital care and GP services. Age is partially incapacitating , hence the exclusion from hospital care but the inability to live alone at home.
There is a case for a contribution, as there i for prescriptions and could be for GP provision but the all-or-nothing basis of care home provision is distinctly unfair.
I had a heart bypass about 2 years ago. It cost you £49,000, according to the american insurance equivalent. This is probably more than the NI I paid in my working life. On the basis of your argument, it should have cost my wife and children £49,000.
Other commenters have raised the point that the young should take care of their old parents themselves. This is not always possible, they may lack the necessary skill or strength, or there may not even be any relatives young enough to care for them.
Having said all that, this is in fact a professional website, and not a political forum.
"I am however in favour of euthanasia in these circumstances."
See Portia's nicely worded reply above. I'm sure a settlor who retains an interest is taxed on the income.
It's a long time since I retired, so I could be wrong.