If it's Santander I'd tell the client to go to another lender.
Motorcycles are not longer cars
From 1 April 2009 (6th for IT) motorcycles are no longer classified as cars.
This is presumably because they do not calculate CO2 on bikes. It has also been confirmed that they will therefore qualify for AIA so depending on the purchase date you may be able to get full relief in the year of purchase.
Yes after expensesIs the £3,000 interest available after estate expenses which should be deducted from the distributable funds. The R185 should only include the income that is available to be paid to them by the estate.
The estate beneficiary is only assessable on the income in the tax year that the funds are paid to the beneficiary or when the estate is wound up and this may be in a different year to the estate.
There will be a 20% tax credit for the beneficiary which will then be set against the trust's liability at 40%. Management expenses may mean that the income is taxable at 20%.
The income can then be distributed to the trusts beneficiaries and another R185 prepared including a 40% tax credit.
Are they just fobbing you off
Are you sure that they aren't just saying this because the can't be bothered to get the information out of their files. I'd be surprised if they destroyed the employee expenses claims as soon as they paid them and their accountant and the Revenue wouldn't be happy.
Surely the employer must be keeping some sort of recorded of what they are paying. Otherwise how can they prove that they are paying under the approved rates.
The Revenue could easily pull this up under a PAYE enquiry if all they can show is the amounts they have paid to the employees as this doesn't prove that they operated under the approved rates.
Anyway, is there no way that you can calculate the mileage from the amounts that he received or did he receive different mileage rates for different journeys and how much is actually at stake to make it worthwhile pursuing this.
As has been mentioned it is after all the client's money in the end whether they agreed for it to be paid to you or not and so I can't see the Revenue giving up anything.
Some people might say the blame lies with the client for running up such a large overdraft and that they may have a bad relationship with the bank if they suddenly reduced the overdraft as soon as they got some cash in the account.
Does your client have any recourse with the bank for their actions which have affected his business leaving him unable to pay his accountant.
I know this all sound harsh and we'd all like to get something from the Revenue when their mistakes affect our clients and our own business.
Your software is correctRental profit and losses arising from different legal capacities can not be set against each other.
IR150 para 16. Still available in the Revenue manuals.
Agree with KenAs he has explained it is the responsiblity of the employer to ensure that not private use occurs and specifically to keep records to show that this happens.
Although as Pondfield has mentioned the Revenue are required to argue that the legislation is not adhered to, without adequate records being kept by the client they will not have much trouble proving this will they.
The point is with a one man band company you will find it hard to manage the employee (ie the director) to ensure that no private use occurs.
After all if he really only needed a vehilce for business use and he has is the only employe why has he chosen to purchase a double cab pickup with 5 seats. What other vehicles do the family have?
If the Revenue amend the statement of account following the conclusion of the enquiry the payments on account will also be amended and so as you have suggested interest will be charged for late payment.
If the issue a seperate assessment for the additional tax due arising from the enquiry then the payments on account will remain.
what was the loss relief claimed and why might it be restricted just to make sure that it will follow the normal rules that I have explained above
Deemed lease premium
From my memory the cost of the extension would be a deemed lease premium.
Therefore part of the cost of the works will be revenue apportioned over the life of the lease and part will be capital both for the tenant and the landlord using the usual formula. this will be a wasting asset if the lease is less than 50 years left.
There are rules for valuing the deemed premium which may not necessarily be the cost of the extension and you should look at the PIM manual.
Maybe there are better ways to structure the arrangement although I can't think of any which would allow your client to obtain a revenue deduction for all of the cost of the works.
Do it onlineI would recommend filing the amendment on line.
Although you will have to recreate the return for submission of the amended copy this will ensure that there is no Revenue Officer involvement in processing the amendment.
The time spent recreating the return will soon be recovered through the time saved not having to chase the Revenue on the amendment, checking they have done it right etc.
Won't you have to recreate the return to be able to advise the client of his correct tax position anyway.
This user has not written any comments yet.