My main concern is the loss of very highly skilled people to other more tax favourable locations.
Generally people with these skills are contractors not to save tax but to be in control of his or her destiny.
The figures mentioned in extra tax revenue will only arise if they can be collected. Personally I would scrap this piece of legislation. It appears that we will be leaving the EU and when his happens we cant afford to loose any people paying taxes. But as a previous poster has said Civil Servants really have not a clue.
Supremetwo raises a valid point. Which is the same as that for Corporation Tax, the lower the rate the greater the amount of tax collected through PAYE etc.
And the more people that bring their money to the UK will benefit the UK .
IHT is the most hated tax according to research and I for one feel that if it is necessary that it start at £15M. Personally I would scrap it.
I am not sure that the very low start figure will help the cause.
From my view much inherited wealth is tied up in the house we live - giving it to our children means that they too can own a home rather than mortgage until; death.
In the UK we have this disparity of house prices so for me LGT is a non-starter because those in high house cost areas end up with a lower standrard of living than those in a low cost area. I apprecioate incomes are also lower but this still has to be sorted before talking about a lower limit.
In spain there is an annual tax on property (and maybe assets) above a certain figure. When I dealt with it it was 0.5% on a figure of over £750k. I would see this as a faired system.
Why do we need this idea. Its all based on absolute wealth rather than on what type of assets.
As others have said it appears to be politicians wanting to raise more for pet projects
For me it does not matter if you are qualified or un-qualified but whether one can do the job properly.
The institutes have raised a valid question, that is that there is no one to answer too if the work by an un-represented is incorrect. In addition if that person does not have on-going professional development (CPD) how can he/she be fully aware of changes?
This is the real problem.
Yes it would be nice to have accountants and tax advisers as restricted but it would not sort the problem.
Always a big deal being made out of £40b. In the scheme of things and based on what the govt receives in revenue not a massive sum. As the collumnist has pointed out no doubt be clawed back anotherway.
That having said how much Govt spending achieves nothing except fame for the person proposing it.
The first thing I would do if appointed as prime minster is to severely reduce the size of the cabinet. Secondly I would downsize the home office perhaps into smaller ministries because it makes many cockups and is run by career politicians (Mrs May for instance) and thus looses its way.
Then I would have a bank holiday in October because its a long gap between Aug 31 to DEc 25th
Based on what is going on in parliment the date mentioned should be moved to 31 July 2019
"As we stand at the moment, with effect from 15 July 2019, businesses will need to apply HMRC’s revised procedures or face VAT claims being rejected"
I would add that the last time one of my clients signed up at my suggestion he received a call at 8pm when he was with friends at a dinner. As HMRC dont use phone numbers which show who is calliing the call was answered only to be told that the payment that HMRC had lost had been found.
In my client's own words very embarrassing and intrusive.
As others have said HMRC needs to get its house in order before agents will recommend.
Thanks Richard. That really cheered me up today.
When are you going to put the relevant parts of the above in plain english so that us AML thickies can get it right
Firstly, every practitioner must have an alternate, namely another practitioner available to take over the running of the practice in the event of death or illness.
This is a great idea in theory but at a recent meeting most practioners admitted that although they were appointed as alternates they would have little spare time to step in if required. This along with "how am I going to get paid" were also other topics that were covered.
Generally most institutes charge more to firms with more that one partner/ director, I am sure to keep members from leaving. I pose the question though is this a fair way to act, particularly as practioners are getting older and for other points mentioned by Chris Cooper
Perhaps God decided that if he changed it all the Church would not bother to beef up security.
Taking a hit this size will mean that all religious organisations are on notice that their bank accounts can be effected by poor credit control.