Member Since: 23rd Jul 2014
10th Oct 2019
A few things to clear up here:
1. The accountants fee's being allowable are dependent on whether there was a trade within the estate or simply dividends, interest, rent etc. If no trade existed then the accountant expenses cannot be offset - the same as the personal tax return expense isn't tax allowable but business accounts prep expense are against the trade.
2. Was the estate handled under annual estate trust returns or was it eligible for the informal tax payment procedure? Looking at the above notes I would expect it to be the latter, meaning you only need to tell HMRC about the full administration period at the end - once the administration period has ended and the funds have been distributed.
3. R185s are only issued in tax years where distributions have been made to beneficiaries. This means that you could have one R185 issued covering all income earned and tax paid during a 3+ year administration period if the full estate was distributed at the end of administration. R185s are not linked to the tax return requirements.
31st Jan 2017
27th Jan 2017
looking at it in isolation you are correct that contributing to the running cost does not in itself create a saving.
However there can be financial advantages created by the business buying the employee a car to run and the employee contributing an amount for the privilege.
The business can sometimes access tax and financial savings over and above that of the employee. You can then create a situation where financially the employee can be much better off without the employer necessarily being worse off.
You need to look at the total life cycle cost of the package for both the business and the employee to see if an advantage exists.
The contribution can be used to create a cost neutral situation for the employer, which in turn reduces the BIK tax, while at the same time the employee can be financially better off.
25th Jan 2017
A bit late to this discussion but I am an ESTJ-A. The description is actually scarily accurate to many of my personality traits.
24th Jan 2017
Agree with PNL on this.
Section 264 ITEPA 2003 is clear that it is the cost per head of persons attending the party that determines the chargeable benefit.
I would suggest if employees/other guests are contributing to the cost then that will reduce said cost. There's not much benefit if you have to pay for it all yourself.
24th Jan 2017
16th Jan 2017
Edited as the information I had provided was complete rubbish. Apologies. See PNL comment below!
11th Jan 2017
I preferred the demolition of the selling.
11th Jan 2017
Here are a few articles I think you should read:
Look into integral features and embedded capital allowances.
PS Pay a professional for advice. It's worth it!
10th Jan 2017
The man's an idiot to suggest such a thing, it shows a naivety beyond belief.
Why don't we all just get paid the same (a national wage) and do job and house rotation to be really fair. So next week I'll be a doctor and live in a council house and the week after I'll clean the public toilets and live in Buckingham palace! Fairs, fair after all.