Member Since: 12th Nov 2015
7th Aug 2019
I'm not reassured by the decision. it smacks of "we are going to get the taxpayer because we don't approve of his business". I don't myself see why there should be a different VAT effect if I say to a client, "I will only bill you if I win", or if I say "my fee is X but I will refund it if I lose". In both cases my fee is contingent on my winning. The amount due cannot be ascertained until it is known whether I win or lose. How can it make a difference whether I have the money in the interim or the client does, but that seems to be the result of that decision. it is equally irrational that I can claim input tax without paying the bill but if I don't pay it apparently cannot cancel the tax out by a credit note because I have not been "repaid".
11th Jun 2019
As a lifelong Chartered accountant and Chartered Tax Advisor I have no problem with competing with good unqualified advisors. I also know that there are qualified advisors that I would not trust to deal with my affairs. Accordingly this perennial argument is pointless. No government is going to put a lot of good advisors out of business to suit the demands of professional bodies.
The professional bodies have it in their own hands. They should get together and launch an advertising campaign that says
- this is the benefits of using a qualified advisor
- anyone with any of the following initials after his or her name is a qualified advisor.
I suggested this many years ago to the then President of the ICAEW, but his response was, "Our members wouldn't want us to promote other professional bodies".
it is that parochialism that is the problem, not that there should be more people regulated.
8th Mar 2019
Privacy used to be a fundamental human right. Have I missed a change that outlaws privacy because a tiny number of people might use it to hide tax evasion? I find it depressing that Accountancy Age should join those who hold human rights in contempt in support of Margaret Hodge's (and apparently Philip Fisher's) obsession with stopping all tax evasion, whatever the cost to the preservation of civilised society might be.
23rd Oct 2017
You could of course point out that HMRC manuals are not the law. You could then produce for the Officer an opening balance sheet for the property letting business, which would show capital introduced equal to the value of the property. You could then point out that fi a person wishes to borrow to finance his business rather than finance the cost himself, that does not mean that the interest he pays on the borrowing is not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of his business. If a person were required to provide the whole of the finance for his business mortgage interest could never be allowed.
I doubt this is actually a change of HMRC policy. it seems to be an individual Officer taking an idiosyncratic view. I would be surprised if that view was upheld on review.