After failing at and early age to make a living by playing guitar, I started a career helping clients to save money and become more efficient. In 2009 I set up Curtis Plumstone Associates to concentrate on undertaking Capital Allowances Claims on Commercial Property. My business partner is a Deloittes trained expert in this field and my job is to keep him as fully employed as possible on projects large and small.
Following that line of thought there would need to be a VAT exemption for make-up, hair dye, sports cars purchased by men going through a midlife crisis and a hundred other things. I doubt the taxpayer went through a detailed psycholical profile of each patient and tried to discourage their clients.
Isn't one of the points here that the tax payer could have been exempt if they had kept adequate records for each client detailing the psychological needs that were being met. Although no doubt some of the treatments had a psycholical element I suspect most were due to vanity and / or a desire to halt the signs of aging. The tax payer should have taken professional advice in my opinion at the earliest opportunity.
I'd rather hoped this issue had been put to bed once and for all with the J.D. Wetherspoons case. As you rightly point out this will be a retrograde step in terms of encouraging investment in commercial property assets. Let's hope Orsted appeal the decision and sanity prevails.
I do wonder how significant the £250,000 fine is to the partner in question. Is it based on the seriousness of the offence or their ability to pay? Given the firm and the partners seniority I imagine they will still be pretty comfortable after they have paid up.
Probably the most worrying thing in this whole article is the heading Customer Service has Returned to Normal. This must be some new and interesting definition of normal we've never heard of before.
Not forgetting that if the property qualifies as an FHL the owners should be looking to claim for any "embedded fixtures" in the property to offset against any tax liability. Where the property was previously purely residential their entitlement to claim is relatively straight forward.
My answers
Following that line of thought there would need to be a VAT exemption for make-up, hair dye, sports cars purchased by men going through a midlife crisis and a hundred other things. I doubt the taxpayer went through a detailed psycholical profile of each patient and tried to discourage their clients.
Isn't one of the points here that the tax payer could have been exempt if they had kept adequate records for each client detailing the psychological needs that were being met. Although no doubt some of the treatments had a psycholical element I suspect most were due to vanity and / or a desire to halt the signs of aging. The tax payer should have taken professional advice in my opinion at the earliest opportunity.
I'd rather hoped this issue had been put to bed once and for all with the J.D. Wetherspoons case. As you rightly point out this will be a retrograde step in terms of encouraging investment in commercial property assets. Let's hope Orsted appeal the decision and sanity prevails.
I do wonder how significant the £250,000 fine is to the partner in question. Is it based on the seriousness of the offence or their ability to pay? Given the firm and the partners seniority I imagine they will still be pretty comfortable after they have paid up.
Always up for a game of golf but could I borrow your clubs? I promise I'll give them back honest.
Always up for a game of golf but could I borrow your clubs? I promise I'll give them back honest.
Thank you Citizen Graves. Long live Brititania and down with Bureautania.
Probably the most worrying thing in this whole article is the heading Customer Service has Returned to Normal. This must be some new and interesting definition of normal we've never heard of before.
Obviously they were looking to feather their nest.
Not forgetting that if the property qualifies as an FHL the owners should be looking to claim for any "embedded fixtures" in the property to offset against any tax liability. Where the property was previously purely residential their entitlement to claim is relatively straight forward.