Exactly. I think even more so the BIK issue as the cost is PERSONAL whereas the VAT, whist painful is a company cost and subsidised by tax relief.
And to GDavidson's point, I have a situation where (due to an ill-advised, or more accurately non-advised) modification to a commercial vehicle adding seats changed a £3,600 p.a. benefit to closer to 37% of £100k (inc private fuel).
The Chancellor's statement that only 10% of companies will be subject to the 25% tax charge is implicitly saying that only 10% of companies would benefit from the new 100% capital allowance. And I suspect only a fraction of those given the £1m AIA. I suspect a very few FTSE scale business will benefit significantly. Others not at all.
Small but irritating (a description of me some might say) - setting up a new dormant company client. A plethora of money laundering requirements and forms, engagement letters, internal procedures to adhere to. All for a negligible fee. The balance between bureaucracy and return seems all out of kilter when doing the initial work.
Whether the tax avoidance is ultimately determined to be legal or not, effective or not, this is another example of sheltering "income" from tax which massively reduces the burden of tax paid by those that can afford such strategies. This is the same logic used by the large corporations who operate from an offshore base this denying the Exchequer revenue. The massive sheltering of taxes does nothing to aid recovery, ultimately to everyone's detriment. I wonder (and I say this as a football fan) what supporters, who chastise "Big Corp PLC" for their machinations would think of their heroes doing no better
My answers
Exactly. I think even more so the BIK issue as the cost is PERSONAL whereas the VAT, whist painful is a company cost and subsidised by tax relief.
And to GDavidson's point, I have a situation where (due to an ill-advised, or more accurately non-advised) modification to a commercial vehicle adding seats changed a £3,600 p.a. benefit to closer to 37% of £100k (inc private fuel).
The Chancellor's statement that only 10% of companies will be subject to the 25% tax charge is implicitly saying that only 10% of companies would benefit from the new 100% capital allowance. And I suspect only a fraction of those given the £1m AIA. I suspect a very few FTSE scale business will benefit significantly. Others not at all.
Can’t see that many companies with profits between £50k and £250k having capital expenditure of more than £1m (relieved by existing AIA).
Small but irritating (a description of me some might say) - setting up a new dormant company client. A plethora of money laundering requirements and forms, engagement letters, internal procedures to adhere to. All for a negligible fee. The balance between bureaucracy and return seems all out of kilter when doing the initial work.
Loans
Whether the tax avoidance is ultimately determined to be legal or not, effective or not, this is another example of sheltering "income" from tax which massively reduces the burden of tax paid by those that can afford such strategies. This is the same logic used by the large corporations who operate from an offshore base this denying the Exchequer revenue. The massive sheltering of taxes does nothing to aid recovery, ultimately to everyone's detriment. I wonder (and I say this as a football fan) what supporters, who chastise "Big Corp PLC" for their machinations would think of their heroes doing no better