Member Since: 9th Sep 1999
9th Apr 2020
Amusingly, we as PAYE agents, have not received the email of 8th April from HMRC - but a client has received it, addressed to them as agents.
12th Sep 2016
The invoices are issued by Uber "on behalf of" the driver. The driver will not be able to issue a VAT invoice - it has to be downloaded from the riders Uber account.
I think this is likely to be too tedious for the riders who choose to use Uber - but without that no VAT reclaim possible.
19th Mar 2016
We made the decision to move 100% Google Apps - it is not a question of comparing storage amounts / cost but a move away from working on local PCs, with all the duplicated / conflicted copies that comes with that. (Coincidentally we took the decision at the same time that Xero as an organisation did the same for their internal systems).
It moves the mindset from there being versions of files to being instinctively collaborative on shared files - with clients as well as internally.
9th Jan 2014
At one time or another I have used the two main integrated solutions and have used VT for accounts and TaxCalc for tax for a few years now.
VT and TaxCalc Accounts Production are both great.
while I am not abandoning ship entirely from VT I have started using TC's AP and it is very good and very quick. Some specific thoughts:
VT Final Accounts is in Excel - this is a big advantage quick Excel manipulation of formats etc is possible, and extra tabs can be appended as working papers to generate numbers in the final accounts pages (Phillip H, did you ever think of adding standard working papers tabs?)
VT Final Accounts is in Excel - this is a big disadvantage - if a dialogue is open in Vt you cannot check something in another Excel worksheet
You can set up a CT600 in TaxCalc very quickly with the accounts done in VT - but with the accounts in TaxCalc the "Check & Finish" flags up that there have been changes in the Accounts - a crucial check that can be missed in the manual Vt to TaxCalc process.
3rd Jan 2014
The client has raised finance to fund his rental business - it is irrelevant what property the finance is secured on. The claim must be proportionate to the capital value of the rental property when first let.
1st Oct 2012
I think we agree
I think that we agree. When I have consulted VAT specialists / consultants on this point they have said that HMRC going back & applying retrospectively is low risk AND impossible if the ownership of the businesses is actually seperate. They stressed that there are two distinct HMRC powers, one can apply to history & one can only apply to future trading.
27th Sep 2012
Steve, Suggest you have a read of: RE & RL Newton (t/a RE Newton) (LON/2000/84 No 17222) - there are a wealth of other cases on this topic, some won by HMRC, some by the businesses. I am not a VAT specialist but my undersrtanding is that if HMRC finds that businesses were never actually separate the historic figures can be aggregated & the underpaid VAT assessed, if the businesses were sperately owned & split in other ways then they can only rule that they are aggregated in the future. Really sugest you take proper professional advice - what you must avoid is worrying about a sudden assessment covering anumber of years. One thing you must keep in mind is that separation for income tax is not the same as for VAT - the rules are different.
29th Jun 2012
HMRC will have much more scope to challenge timings etc, at least of salary/remuneration after 6.4.13 - when credits to DLA that are to be treated as salary will have to be accompanied by an RTI filing - so no credits to Director Loan a/c raised around P35 time in future.
26th Jun 2012
Nil P11D Online
There is one cheat on this that an accountant I know has used - put 1p in the expenses box. Apparently this works except that the 1p is rounded up to £1 by HMRC computer and £1 is recorded in an amended coding notice!
28th May 2012
Different taxes & different rules
Deductibility for Corp Tax depends on costs being "holly & exclusively" for the purposes of the trade.
Inclusion of personal costs in the P11D'ed benefits in kind - the test is not the same, and the corp tax treatment is totally unconnected to whether a benefit is taxed on the individual at marginal personal tax rates and costs the company 13.8%in Class 1A National Insurance. These could be 40% + 13.8% = 53.8% - why would HMRC be prepared to let that justifiable tax be foregone just because the company has not claimed 20% CT relief on the payment?
The rules are entirely different.