michaelblake
Member Since: 6th Oct 1999
Blogger
Likes: 0
Thanks: 154
Michael Blake
Professional History
1973 – 1988 Inland Revenue Inspector of Taxes Specialist areas included the taxation of jockeys, trainers, bloodstock breeders and farmers.
1988 – 1994 Tax Specialist, Grant Thornton - providing strategic planning, taxation, business and financial advice to agricultural and land based clients. Spokesman for the firm at national events, e.g. RASE Royal Agricultural Show, RASE Equine Event, Smithfield Show, at colleges, and on local and national radio.
1994 – 1998 Tax Specialist in the Leeds office of Coopers and Lybrand leading and developing the firms agricultural practice in the North of England. Organising and developing training nationally on tax and legal issues arising in the agricultural and landed estates sectors.
1998 – 2000 Member of PricewaterhouseCoopers tax investigations practice handling investigations originating from the Inland Revenue Special Compliance Office the division of the Inland Revenue that handles cases of serious tax evasion and initiates civil and criminal prosecutions.
From 2000 Running my own business offering specialist tax consultancy to businesses and to legal and accountancy firms both regionally and nationally.
Consultant acting as a national specialist for IRIS Professional Tax Practice until 2012 and from 2012 for Tax Action Consultancy Ltd in the fields of inheritance tax and capital gains tax and tax issues particular to farming, landed estates, bloodstock breeders, mineral extraction and the development of land.
My answers
If HMRC want people to use the App they need a well thought out publicity campaign to advertise what the App is capable off. As a retired practitioner, and someone in their 70s I had no idea that the App existed, neither did any of many friends and acquaintances I mentioned it to. I wrote to Jim McMahon to tell him about this after reading the HMRC report saying that HMRC could operate more effectively if customers interacted with them digitally instead of using the phone. I got a stock reply from someone in Leeds
Don’t blame the difficulty in travelling into cities on train strikes. It has been impossible to travel into either Leeds or Manchester for months now because even if you can manage to get there there is no guarantee of a train back. The TransPennine service has collapsed with half the advertised services routinely cancelled on most days. The problems have been created by an incompetent train operator who rely on drivers working rest days and voluntary overtime to deliver the timetable and compounded by the DfT who seem to want to do everything in thief power to aggravate the position.
I still have a copy of Dennis Healey’s Green Paper somewhere. A determined chancellor couldn’t make it work then. I doubt that this one could make it work now.
There is nothing in the guidance that I can see that suggests that the grant is limited to companies in England. As others note the guidance refers to businesses only. Could the author of the article respond to that and correct the wording of the article if needed please to avoid unnecessary uncertainty, and worry for some
The tribunal rules may be found here
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/upper-tribunal-procedure-rules
The judges in this case were judge Poole and Judge Greenbank
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5bd9a236ed915d14ee6e20bc/...
There is a decent summary here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Tribunal
It is the Tax and Chancery Division that hears appeals on tax
Michael Thomas QC acting for the respondent tried that but the tribunal decided that s224 had no application to the facts of the case under discussion and should be applied only in circumstances where there is a change in what is occupied as the main residence, following a period of occupation.
"Perhaps he would have been better served by arguing that as a fact the property gain did not accrue throughout the period but only started when the property was habitable?"
That is exactly what Michael Thomas QC acting for the respondent argued and the tribunal rejected the argument. The upper tribunal decision notes that (a) TCGA 1992 taxes gains arising on the increase in value between the date an asset is acquired and the date it is disposed of (b) S28 notes that the date of acquisition and disposal are determined by the dates upon which contracts are exchanged and not the date the contracts are completed, and (c) gains are assumed to accrue ion a straight line basis throughout the period of ownership of the asset, and (d) s223 provides for partial relief where an asset has been used as a private residence for only party of the period for which the asset has been owned.
There is nothing surprising therefore about the decision. The only surprise is that the first tier tribunal came to a different decision.
My recollection is that the early mtd guidance suggested that landlords with more than one let property would have to account for each separately which would be interesting to say the least for most landed estates which might have dozens of let properties and several expenses common to all of them eg insurance legals accountancy office and staffing costs. I do not recall any amendment to this initial guidance and have since retired. Do others know the current position?
My recollection is that the early mtd guidance suggested that landlords with more than one let property would have to account for each separately which would be interesting to say the least for most landed estates which might have dozens of let properties and several expenses common to all of them eg insurance legals accountancy office and staffing costs. I do not recall any amendment to this initial guidance and have since retired. Do others know the current position?