Police investigation ongoing, so not a good idea for HRH to say anything that might indicate culpability. Also, too much contact between the Palace and the other parties might be construed as interfering with witnesses. Finally, the tendency of the other parties to report everything that is said to the Daily Mirror is likely to inhibit the Palace's enthusiasm for further dialogue!
Are there any CGT implications regarding loss of a proportion of PPR relief on sale of the home?
Wasn't Tomlin (LJ), in Inland Revenue Commissioners v Duke of Westminster (1936) simply following The Lord President Clyde (Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue Commissioners (1929))?
"No man in this country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or to his property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel into his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow to take every advantage which is open to it under the taxing statutes for the purpose of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is, in like manner, entitled to be astute to prevent, so far is he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Revenue."
Euan MacLennan wrote:
Paul Scholes wrote:
I'd suggest that the "them & us" is a reality rather than an image created when educational establishments for "them" were first allowed to happen.
Did you know that Eton College was founded in 1440? Indeed, most public schools for "them" were founded long before there were any achools for "us".
Actually, in those days, schools were founded as acts of charity and attended by "us": the children of the "them" (the boys, anyway) were educated by tutors.
Perhaps when consultants from the Big 4 start getting told by their public sector clients that they've got to operate under the new regime, the Government might start to experience some heavy duty lobbying.
The link you need is:
If your client was awarded his MC as an other rank and before 7 September 1993, then he should be getting £0.025 per day tax free. Otherwise, nothing.
Whoa! One of the characteristics of a joint tenancy is "The joint tenants own an undivided interest in the property as a whole; each share is equal, and no one joint tenant can ever have a larger share." So, before your clients can make the changes they propose, they will have to change their ownership to a tenancy in common.
I suggest your client joins IPSE immediately.
One last question, how would the employee - a non finance/accounting employee - know to contact HMRC regarding the revised tax code?
Our income tax system works on the Self-Assessment principle. So, I'm afraid, however unreasonable/unrealistic/unworkable/unfair/unjust it might seem, the onus is on the taxpayer to educate himself on his tax liabilities.
Not sure I can help with your specific question David but, presumably, if the cumulative bankings exceed the cumulative alleged theft then that is a pointer towards innocence.