Member Since: 30th Jun 2003
8th Nov 2017
Having dealt with one client where this was applied to their fees, I agree that the legislation is a really bad piece of knee-jerk re-action caused by The Daily Mail highlighting the BBC having a high percentage of their staff off payroll.
The "public purse" engagers are applying this without considering whether or not the engagement falls into IR35, because they don't have to, and it's no skin off their nose if it costs more with Ers NI (after all it's not their money they are spending is it.).
So you are effectively left with a company having to pay it's expenses out of taxed income because there is no un-taxed income to offset it against.
Appalling - should have been riots in the street (mind you I said that when the government cleverly switches statutory sick pay from something they were obliged to pay, to something the employer was lumbered with!!)
12th Apr 2017
I've already had a client forward a notice of coding issued on 15/3/17 adjusting his 16/17 code to collect the tax on his state pension of £6358. Unfortunately this only started being paid on 15/3/17 so for the year amounts to a grand total of £244. Of course because of HMRC's unique postal system our client got it on 7/4/17, and even then we couldn't see it on the website.
I await to see how much tax he actually had deducted from his other income, and as I've told him, the quickest way to get it back will be by submitting a SA return, just as I was hoping to get him out of that club.
All I need now is for him to fall into the paper return band, where the Revenue no longer have the staff to process it, and my life will be complete!!!!
9th May 2016
so what the hell is PE1400 that makes it not worth :-This content has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000
18th Jan 2016
An employee is using his employer's PRIVATE vehicle
pages of crap because people have ignored the word PRIVATE in the question.
If the it's the employers PRIVATE vehicle - it's outside the business - so its irrelevant - so yes the employee is using his own vehicle(i.e. not one supplied by the business - and so doesn't matter where he got it from , borrowed, leased, stolen, owned) he can claim 45p for the 1st 10K, either off the employer or in an expenses claim against his tax.
Back to tax returns now.
12th Jun 2014
6 months down the line
Still getting the occasional phone call, which is fielded by my secretaries with the my instructions to tell them to F off,(though I don't think they do) plus the odd letter., but no summons etc.
For a 3 months got threatening emails but just responded with the one line
"please send recording of salesperson’s pitch" Which resulted in more abusive emails, and threats of legal action
Trading standards didn't want to know as it's business to bussiness & not a consumer thing.
All in all, best to not a pleasant experience & only grateful I sent no money.
11th Jun 2014
11th Jun 2014
Actually - sue the company is the right answer
If it is as a result of the working conditions (and obviously the medic should confirm this in writing) then the claim is for the damages as brought about by this, i.e. medical expenses travelling, loss of earnings etc.
If they have employers liability insurance, then this should be looked at if the amount is large, if not well consider settling out of court.
After all the limited company is the employer, and the director is the employee. As a forensic accountant I acted as expert witnes on a couple of cases for insurance companies where the director sued the company for personal injuries - even though they were one man bands. The claims were admitted and it was only the quantum that was being argued about.
20th Jan 2014
strangely enough its not that cut & dried
If the employer failed to operate PAYE correctly then it is them that is at fault and liable for tax:-
I'm currently dealing with such a case.
10th Jun 2013
To claim capital allaowances on an asset, a sole trader does not need to enter the asset on to "the books", After all plenty of sole traders do not produce a balance sheet as why should they? It is claimed in the computations. A car is no different to any other asset with private use, except there were limits for "expensive" cars, Nieleg is correct.
10th Jun 2013
It was a smoke & mirrors ruse
It was a smoke & mirrors ruse by Gordon (I spit on him) Brown to extract more tax and get out of the problems of ACT.
It's unforseen side effect was the total ruination of the private pension industry, since as they could no longer reclaim the tax credit, they were effectively being taxed on dividend income. As pension companies/schemes were the biggest share holders who were suddenly faced with a fall in income they decided to get out and into interest paying investments(where they could reclaim the tax), the resulting panic sale of shares led to one of the biggest black weekdays that the stock market has ever seen.
So GB killed the pension industry & private pensions, and stole my old age!
I think MP's & especialy Chancellors should be forced in defined contribution pensions that they have to pay for out of their own pockets, that'd sharpen them up!