Surely it is unfair to blame HMRC for this fiasco - they are (believe it or not) human. The problem lies with the idiots that have occupied No. 11 Downing Street for the past 20 years who have created a system of allowances etc. that is absurdly complex where mistakes are inevitable. In this instance the HMRC is effectively caught in the middle (or should that be "muddle").
My greatest concern is that this appears to alter the onus of proof. Many landlords start out making at best only a marginal trading profit - they rely on rental inflation in order to generate profits in future years. But HMRC may well try to interpret this situation that they entered the transaction in order to make a capital profit.
Does the following offer any comfort though? http://www.landlords.org.uk/news-campaigns/news/nla-reassures-members-ov...
And who was at least in part instrumental in devising the legislation that enables Luxemburg to host all of these dodgy tax deals - step forward please Mr Juncker and receive the praise that is due to you for this piece of international tax sabotage that so disadvantages your fellow EU members.
What is obvious from the fact that so many apparently reasonably intelligent people have differing opinions about some very basic issues regarding the operation of RTI is that the system has not been properly set up and communicated to users. I now know that if I am to run RTI strictly in compliance with the law as I now understand it to be I will have to run two separate payrolls with all of the extra aggravation that this entails. There are clearly many others for whom strict compliance with RTI is going to create significant problems/burdens. And all because some bureaucratic idiot in HMRC insists that I MUST submit data on a particular date rather than three days later. Nobody has suggested any excuse for HMRC demanding this information on this date - and it is not as if HMRC will actually use it on that date. It is just another excuse for levying penalties - and it would be good if some of the apologists for HMRC could acknowledge this fact rather than implying that if you break the law you should expect to be penalised.
Can somebody help me with this very simple question? I know the FPS is due before the employee is paid - but when is that deemed to be? - and how does HMRC become aware of this? Is it (a) the date that the payment file is submitted to the company's bank (b) the date funds are committed by the company's bank or (c) the date the employee receives the money in their bank account. And how am I expected to notify HMRC the correct date? Why HMRC has to have this immediately I cannot imagine - why can't they just back down and allow employers to submit by 19th of the month as others have suggested - or I would even accept an earlier date of say 8th of the month to ensure that they have more up-to-date info.
Bit unfair to tarnish the good name of Costa Coffee (owned by Whitbread and paying very large sums of tax in the UK) when you mean Starbucks (US owned and paying no UK tax). Costa is a victim of this unfair competition from Starbucks just as much as HMT!
.... are of course the likes of Google, Amazon and Apple. If just these three companies were to pay a "proper" amount of tax the Revenue would probably benefit to the tune of several £Billion a year. And this could easily be done by having a minimum level of deemed profitability (based on their worldwide income) to calculate their CT and by closing VAT loopholes.
After all these companies bring no benefit to the UK economy in terms of jobs etc. so there would be no risk in doing so.
Of course the top rate is not 62%, it is 67% since in order to pay an employee £100 a company has to pay an additional 13.8% NI - so net receipt is £38 out of £113.80. This is the figure that needs to be used in talking about the burden of taxation and the lengths to which people will go to avoid it.
My answers
Surely it is unfair to blame HMRC for this fiasco - they are (believe it or not) human. The problem lies with the idiots that have occupied No. 11 Downing Street for the past 20 years who have created a system of allowances etc. that is absurdly complex where mistakes are inevitable. In this instance the HMRC is effectively caught in the middle (or should that be "muddle").
My greatest concern is that this appears to alter the onus of proof. Many landlords start out making at best only a marginal trading profit - they rely on rental inflation in order to generate profits in future years. But HMRC may well try to interpret this situation that they entered the transaction in order to make a capital profit.
Does the following offer any comfort though? http://www.landlords.org.uk/news-campaigns/news/nla-reassures-members-ov...
Systems failures
IF HMRC has a systems failure that is just unfortunate and we the users just have to waste our time re-submitting data.
If I have system failure (or dare I suggest staff absence) and end up submitting late then I get fined.
So that is all entirely fair and reasonable.
True culprit
And who was at least in part instrumental in devising the legislation that enables Luxemburg to host all of these dodgy tax deals - step forward please Mr Juncker and receive the praise that is due to you for this piece of international tax sabotage that so disadvantages your fellow EU members.
Clarity and Common Sense
What is obvious from the fact that so many apparently reasonably intelligent people have differing opinions about some very basic issues regarding the operation of RTI is that the system has not been properly set up and communicated to users. I now know that if I am to run RTI strictly in compliance with the law as I now understand it to be I will have to run two separate payrolls with all of the extra aggravation that this entails. There are clearly many others for whom strict compliance with RTI is going to create significant problems/burdens. And all because some bureaucratic idiot in HMRC insists that I MUST submit data on a particular date rather than three days later. Nobody has suggested any excuse for HMRC demanding this information on this date - and it is not as if HMRC will actually use it on that date. It is just another excuse for levying penalties - and it would be good if some of the apologists for HMRC could acknowledge this fact rather than implying that if you break the law you should expect to be penalised.
When is an RTI submission due?
Can somebody help me with this very simple question? I know the FPS is due before the employee is paid - but when is that deemed to be? - and how does HMRC become aware of this? Is it (a) the date that the payment file is submitted to the company's bank (b) the date funds are committed by the company's bank or (c) the date the employee receives the money in their bank account. And how am I expected to notify HMRC the correct date? Why HMRC has to have this immediately I cannot imagine - why can't they just back down and allow employers to submit by 19th of the month as others have suggested - or I would even accept an earlier date of say 8th of the month to ensure that they have more up-to-date info.
Starbucks
Bit unfair to tarnish the good name of Costa Coffee (owned by Whitbread and paying very large sums of tax in the UK) when you mean Starbucks (US owned and paying no UK tax). Costa is a victim of this unfair competition from Starbucks just as much as HMT!
The real tax dodgers ....
.... are of course the likes of Google, Amazon and Apple. If just these three companies were to pay a "proper" amount of tax the Revenue would probably benefit to the tune of several £Billion a year. And this could easily be done by having a minimum level of deemed profitability (based on their worldwide income) to calculate their CT and by closing VAT loopholes.
After all these companies bring no benefit to the UK economy in terms of jobs etc. so there would be no risk in doing so.
Top rate of tax
Of course the top rate is not 62%, it is 67% since in order to pay an employee £100 a company has to pay an additional 13.8% NI - so net receipt is £38 out of £113.80. This is the figure that needs to be used in talking about the burden of taxation and the lengths to which people will go to avoid it.
General Partner
Extract from the Consultation Paper linked to above:
"Section 4(4) of the 1907 Act expressly confirms that a body corporate may be a
limited partner. It does not provide that a body corporate may be a general
partner. This raises the question whether the omission is deliberate. Companies
House routinely registers limited partnerships which have companies as general
partners. This practice is in line with the general principle summarised by Lord
Lindley:
There is no general principle of law which prevents a corporation
from being a partner with another corporation or with ordinary
individuals, except the principle that a corporation cannot lawfully
employ its funds for purposes not authorised by its constitution." "
So it looks like in practise you are wrong BK.