Member Since: 4th Feb 2003
27th Feb 2017
Thanks Hal. Without wishing to breach any advertising rules (and moderators, feel free to delete this post if it does), just to say that we are definitely running courses in Kempton Park and Salisbury this year, starting this Wednesday (1 March) at Kempton Park.
Feel free to contact me for details.
29th Feb 2016
PNL's "I repeat" has it correct here
Those of you arguing over tax law are largely missing the point here, I am afraid. It is all about compensation for loss.
Basil, I always thought PNL was a lady (or female, at least)....did I miss an email on this?
15th Jan 2016
Client will have to account for an acquisition but the output tax in Box 2 and the input tax in Box 4 would be the same so no net effect.
And don't call me Shirley. [(c) Airplane].
15th Jan 2016
VAT / UTRs
No reason not to take him on, but on a professional basis with fees (or rates per hour agreed in advance).
EU Acquisitions count towards the VAT turnover threshold. In September 2015 his acquisitions must have exceeded £70,000 in the calendar year for the Dutch company to tell him there was an issue.
So if he had made sales exceeding £10,000 - £12,000 in the 12 months to September 2015 then he was liable to register and became a taxable person once his turnover in the previous 12 months exceeded the threshold.
He needs to (late) register immediately from 30 days after the month when his annual turnover exceeded the threshold. He will either have to issue VAT-only invoices to his customers or absorb the output VAT himself (1/6 of his sales).
As has been mentioned, it may be possible to get the Dutch supplier to reissue their invoices but from the effective date of registration but this is by no means guaranteed.
On the subject of UTRs, I applied for one for a client just before Xmas and it arrived within 5 days.
7th Jan 2016
Tax treatment of leases and mention of SSAP 21
There seems to be some wide-spread and, frankly, unsettling misconceptions about the tax treatment of leases for a lessee.
The general rule is that the tax treatment follows the accounting treatment so:
If it is an operating lease, then the rentals (net of any VAT reclaimed) will be deductible for the business, subject to any private-use adjustment if the business is unincorporatedIf it is a finance lease, then the depreciation and interest charged to profit and loss will be deductible instead (subject to the same private use adjustments in 1. above)
I presume those who mention SSAP 21 are aware that for accounting periods beginning from 1 January 2015, it no longer applies. FRS 102, FRSSE or FRS 105 will apply instead. FRS 102 has 8 indicators of a finance lease, of which the ability to lease for a secondary period at below a market rent is one.
Fair value is price market participants would pay for an asset to use it for its best use. The retail price quotes on a web site and an invoice value may not indicate a fair value.
The acid test of a finance lease is whether substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership have been transferred to the lessee. SSAP21 and FRSSE 2015 both presume this to be the case only if the present value of the minimum lease payments is 90% or more of the initial fair value of the asset.
Hope this help.
25th Nov 2015
Hopefully lots of complex changes to the tax law
Change is good (for us practising accountants and tax advisors).
Let's hope changes are as complicated as normal.
I also agree that the draft law will almost certainly be different to the announcements made by Mr O.
8th Nov 2015
Just an announcement
To confirm @Euan's comment, no law or even draft law has been published, it was just an announcement and mentioned in the Summer Finance Bill press release as something that would be legislated for at a later time.
As a lecturer on the tax circuit, I wouldn't be bold enough to state unequivocally that by employing a spouse would be sufficient in its own right to qualify for the EA without seeing the law.
Maybe we will find out more at Autumn Statement time.
14th Aug 2015
Not sure it is that clear cut, Ruddles
Perhaps not 100% clear, but I'd say that it's more than 99% clear.
To those arguing for a "per vehicle" basis, can you explain the existence of s94F(3) and s94F(4) given that the 10,000 limit is already set out at s94F(2)?
As a further thought, s94F(2) refers to "the first" 10,000 miles but s94F(3) does not - it merely refers to only 10,000 miles out of total mileage attracting the higher rate. To my mind, that clearly envisages use of two or more vehicles, where it might be difficult to establish the "first" 10,000 miles. If the "per vehicle" argument were valid, I would expect s94F(3) to also refer to the "first" 10,000 miles.
But to repeat an earlier point, if HMRC are prepared to accept per vehicle treatment - in error or otherwise - why challenge it?
Before getting to s94F and its subsections, s94D(5) states: "The amount of the deduction is the appropriate mileage amount in relation to the (emphasis added) relevant vehicle for the period (see section 94F)". Why would it use the definite article if it meant that the deduction should be applied to all relevant vehicles collectively?
s94F(1) states "In calculating the profits of a trade for a period, the appropriate mileage amount in relation to a (emphasis added) relevant vehicle for the period is...". Why does it refer to vehicle singular if it meant to add the mileage for all vehicles together? It goes on to say:
"M x R
M is the number of miles of business journeys made by a person (other than as a passenger) using that (emphasis added) vehicle in the period, and
R is the rate applicable to that kind of vehicle."
s94F(3) is the problematic one - it refers to the 'total number of miles of relevant business journeys made in the period', This could be seen to change the meaning of the above to a total for the trade, but I don't think it is as simple as that.
s94F(4) defines a relevant business journey as "any business journey made in the period by a car or goods vehicle" (singular). So if there are different vehicles they each have their own business journeys and this can be interpreted back into s94F(3) therefore, as total number of miles of relevant business journeys made by each relevant vehicle.
I am not saying this is the only interpretation, but I hope it explains why I don't believe it is anywhere near 99% or more clear.
14th Aug 2015
fawltybasil2575 wrote:Well, there we have it ! What a story ! Steve announces he's putting up for the vacant post as leader of the Conservatives. Basil [ageing Tory member for Cluckpuddlewick; and a strong supporter of Steve's ideals, but not "a yes man" and known to occasionally disagree Steve's policies] promises his undying support to Steve in his leadership camapaign. Taxguru [leader of the Labour Party] denounces Steve's political views and, in the bar at the House of Commons, invites Steve to defect, and to join the Shadow Cabinet - Steve adamantly declines the invitation. Basil remains loyal to Steve's campaign, but [known for his occasionally equivocal nature] repeats his support for Steve [abroad on crucial Foreign Affairs matters, thought to be in Africa]. PNL [quiet for a while after a brief holiday][redoubtable Shadow Cabinet member, and known for somewhat idiosyncratic debating style] pledges his [or officially "her"] support for Taxguru's policies and leadership. Basil remains loyal to Steve, defending himself from withering attacks from PNL in the House of Commons. Steve returns from his meeting with the Prime Minister for Nigeria and, lo and behold, in a sensational House of Commons statement [following a secret Meeting with Taxguru, leader of the Labour Party] announces his defection to the Labour Party, having been promised consideration for the office of Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. Basil, distraught and disillusioned, but appreciative of the strong support of fellow MPs, announces his leaving the Conservative Party to found a new "Purposive Construction" Party. David's expert advices are sought by Basil as to the viability of the proposed new Party. Basil.
Whilst not advancing the debate one iota, this is quite the most brilliant post I think I have ever seen.
Keep it up, Basil.
For what it is worth, and at the risk of incurring the wrath of others, I agree with the per vehicle argument whilst accepting that the law is not 100% clear.
1st Jun 2015
Yes, that will do nicely
The goods do not have to arrive in the member state where the customer (American) is registered, so your client can quote the NL VAT number (having verified it first on the EU's web site VAT number checker) and zero-rate their supply.
The client will need to submit an EU sales list for this transaction if not already doing so.