Autumn Statement 2016
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
I do my best to be helpful on here and end up getting insulted and cursed at.
That's nice.
I think I'll be posting less on here in future regarding tax and accounts.
I've not insulted you. You've implied several times that you don't seek to minimise your clients' tax bills and yesterday were quite happy that small businesses would have to pay over more tax. So I've really only stuck to the facts there. That's nice.
I think I'll be posting less on here in future regarding tax and accounts.
As for cursing you, well clearly I haven't.
I wasn't referring to you partcularly.
And where have I said I didn't want to minimise my clients' tax bills? Of course I do - as long as it is within the law and not likely to put either my clients or my practice at risk.
If a client of mine decides they want to try something "adventurous" regarding tax planning, I will gladly advise them to find a new accountant. I have had one example of that happening and, guess what, three years later and undergoing a massive tax investigation, he has returned to me.
Read that any way you like.
And where have I said I didn't want to minimise my clients' tax bills? Of course I do - as long as it is within the law and not likely to put either my clients or my practice at risk.
If a client of mine decides they want to try something "adventurous" regarding tax planning, I will gladly advise them to find a new accountant. I have had one example of that happening and, guess what, three years later and undergoing a massive tax investigation, he has returned to me.
Read that any way you like.
Eric Mc said:
I wasn't referring to you partcularly.
And where have I said I didn't want to minimise my clients' tax bills? Of course I do - as long as it is within the law and not likely to put either my clients or my practice at risk.
If a client of mine decides they want to try something "adventurous" regarding tax planning, I will gladly advise them to find a new accountant. I have had one example of that happening and, guess what, three years later and undergoing a massive tax investigation, he has returned to me.
Read that any way you like.
No one is talking about adventurous. I am not going to trawl back through threads to call you out, but I've noticed several times that you appear to feel your job is to collect taxes for HMRC. Yesterday you openly stated that you thought small businesses having to pay more tax was a good thing. Want me to provide a link to that?And where have I said I didn't want to minimise my clients' tax bills? Of course I do - as long as it is within the law and not likely to put either my clients or my practice at risk.
If a client of mine decides they want to try something "adventurous" regarding tax planning, I will gladly advise them to find a new accountant. I have had one example of that happening and, guess what, three years later and undergoing a massive tax investigation, he has returned to me.
Read that any way you like.
You shouldn't be too surprised when small business owners - the type of people who pay you - are offended that you think they should pay more tax.
Eric Mc said:
Provide any links you like. I think you are interpreting what I said the way you want to - rather than perhaps the way I meant.
The point is rather the fact that you seem to want to make this a discussion on personal opinions, rather than on the Autumn Statement.
To be clear, you said, "About time, I say. Always felt that Flat Rate VAT was too good to be true". There is really only one way to interpret that, which is the way that several people did.The point is rather the fact that you seem to want to make this a discussion on personal opinions, rather than on the Autumn Statement.
It was you that made it about personal opinions by sharing yours.
It was an unfair distortion of the VAT system and was not being used as intended by those who devised it.
Also, some people came badly unstuck using it because of some not so generous aspects of it that caught them out.
I think it should be done away with altogether - not because I want people to pay more tax - but because it was and is probably even more now, a poorly set out set of rules and regulations.
Also, some people came badly unstuck using it because of some not so generous aspects of it that caught them out.
I think it should be done away with altogether - not because I want people to pay more tax - but because it was and is probably even more now, a poorly set out set of rules and regulations.
Sorry but the FRS being done away with is a right ball-ache. If the government want me to collect tax for them, the least they can do is make it easy for me. I'm not in it for the small amount I get back from the FRS system, I'm in it because I can't be bothered with the hassle of having to keep and file every VAT receipt.
As for public sector contractors oh dear, talk about shafted. No agency is going to want to take on the risk so it looks like IR35 or nothing. The problem is I reckon this is just a prelude. Once it's implemented in the public sector, they'll be going after the private sector next. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.
As for public sector contractors oh dear, talk about shafted. No agency is going to want to take on the risk so it looks like IR35 or nothing. The problem is I reckon this is just a prelude. Once it's implemented in the public sector, they'll be going after the private sector next. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.
Eric Mc said:
It's not being done away with. But the opportunity to profit from it is being reduced, if not cancelled altogether.
The intention was to make keep VAT records easy. It still does that - more or less.
The whole thing about people setting themselves up as Ltd companies but effectively they are contractors they need to pay the same PAYE tax as everyone else does. The intention was to make keep VAT records easy. It still does that - more or less.
And Yes I personally benefitted from it - as it was and still is legal but I'mve Ben PAYE for a long time now.
Eric Mc said:
And it will always be legal - provided the necessary conditions are met.
All that ever happens is that the conditions are scrutinised more carefully.
When I did it from memory c125k I had an effective all up tax rate of 12% which I thought was good going then a friend who earned a fair bit more somehow was merely paying 5%. All that ever happens is that the conditions are scrutinised more carefully.
God knows how but way way over 7 years ago.
Guvernator said:
As for public sector contractors oh dear, talk about shafted. No agency is going to want to take on the risk so it looks like IR35 or nothing. The problem is I reckon this is just a prelude. Once it's implemented in the public sector, they'll be going after the private sector next. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.
Indeed. My multiple contracts with a Govt department have all been fully tested along with signed off working practices by the end client and come up clear. However agency is already saying blanket PAYE is the default approach. I guess the next 3 months will make the mud clearer and give HMRC chance to actually put some meat on the bone. Last meeting with HMRC in relation to this they couldn't even say what the "questions" would be and had not even started developing "the tool".Eric Mc said:
Check up on the Dragonfly case. Getting HMRC clearance for a contract is no guarantee that they won't change their mind later.
I know ... or they will just change the law retrospectively and come at you from another angle ...I would like to keep my "outside" status and Co paid accordingly mainly due to pension payments I make monthly from my Ltd (c5k). I don't see why I should pay these from taxed income. I've seen nothing from HMRC in relation to reclaiming tax paid in future years to cover things like this
Eric Mc said:
And up until the very recent dividend rate change, could be achieved even last tax year.
The problem is that rightly or wrongly one of the incentives of going it on your own is the tax breaks. Yes it might not seem fair, especially for those still on PAYE but I see it as a bit of compensation for the risk you take in starting and running your own business. However make the taxation paperwork too complicated or the taxes too punitive and people won't bother, who knows maybe that's the end goal. If the government make it so unattractive that I'm forced to close down my business, I'll be directly paying less tax as a PAYE and indirectly paying less tax into the overall economy as I'll have less money to spend. Multiply this by however many thousands of other people will be in the same boat and the overall tax take for the government will actually be worse, that's like shooting your nose off to spite your face. I really don't have a clue why the government seem hell bent on shutting this way of working down as in the end it benefits no one.Eric Mc said:
The problem is that many people who have been taking advantage of the tax breaks are not really "running their own business" in the normal meaning of the expression.
Of course that's the case for a lot of people but it always has been, why has it become an issue all of a sudden? Yes I know there have been rules around Ltd companies which are supposed to prevent misuse but why all the focus on this area all of a sudden. It's a legally accepted way for people to freelance which gives some protection to both parties in a contract so either accept that or come up with some other structure that does the same thing. Forcing loads of contractors out of the market "on principle" won't make it any easier to pay our 1 trillion and counting tax hole.Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff