BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[robinhood]

Indeed - this could be somewhat important! I notice that at various times and in different publications they refer to 'income', 'capital gains' and 'profit' - which as we all know are not the same things at all. Hopefully brains far better than mine have already digested all this and found something use!

Well MP must have spotted this hence the comments on the tax returns - best news i've seen for along time !! Wonder if this the reason for the delay in the JR

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Indeed - this could be somewhat important! I notice that at various times and in different publications they refer to 'income', 'capital gains' and 'profit' - which as we all know are not the same things at all. Hopefully brains far better than mine have already digested all this and found something use!

Capital Gains and Income are completely different from a tax perspective.

For example, everyone has a capital gains allowance of about 8k but you can't use this against income eg. interest from a savings account.

Capital Gains used to have taper relief, and there were different rules for commercial vs. non-commercial gains. I think the Govt reformed CGT in 2008 and the maximum rate now payable is 18%.

Anyway, the bottom line is that they are totally different forms of tax.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

This is really bizarre

If you look at the 3 clauses affecting the 3 types of entity (company, person or firm), they are inconsistent in terms of the liability to Income & Capital Gains.

I can't understand why they have done this. Was it just an oversight or did they really intend this?

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...tdocid=3501665

(1)In section 115 of ICTA (partnerships involving companies: supplementary), after subsection (5B) insert—

"(5C)For the purposes of subsections (5) to (5B) the members of a partnership include any company which is entitled to a share of income or capital gains of the partnership."

(2)In section 59 of TCGA 1992 (partnerships), insert at the end—

"(4)For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) the members of a partnership include any person entitled to a share of capital gains of the partnership."

(3)In section 858 of ITTOIA 2005 (resident partners and double taxation agreements), insert at the end—

"(4)For the purposes of this section the members of a firm include any person entitled to a share of income of the firm."

[deckster]

If you look at the 3 clauses affecting the 3 types of entity (company, person or firm), they are inconsistent in terms of the liability to Income & Capital Gains.

I can't understand why they have done this. Was it just an oversight or did they really intend this?

It's really weird I agree. I'm trying to track down the initial draft that was discussed by the Finance Committee to see what was written there but no luck yet. It's possible that there's some subtle legal difference that differentiates the three, or equally it's entirely likely that the law is - once again - drafted badly. And whilst I'm on the subject, what is the difference between a 'firm' and a 'company'?! I strongly suspect shoddy drafting!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

It's really weird I agree. I'm trying to track down the initial draft that was discussed by the Finance Committee to see what was written there but no luck yet. It's possible that there's some subtle legal difference that differentiates the three, or equally it's entirely likely that the law is - once again - drafted badly. And whilst I'm on the subject, what is the difference between a 'firm' and a 'company'?! I strongly suspect shoddy drafting!

I just checked, and it was drafted this way. I don't know why I didn't spot this anomoly at the time.


PS. although it's a damn good job no-one on this forum did and tipped off our "friends".

I am sure Montpelier were aware of it which is why they kept it very quiet!!!

[bombaycat]

I just checked, and it was drafted this way. I don't know why I didn't spot this anomoly at the time.


PS. although it's a damn good job no-one on this forum did and tipped off our "friends".

I am sure Montpelier were aware of it which is why they kept it very quiet!!!

Well done guys for finding this, wherever it leads it sounds very promising.

And the second piece of good news today for me - finally got my starting date for new contract, next monday - bye bye bench!
Good luck to everyone else in benchdom - I hope this gives you a dose of hope. Keep plugging away there are some jobs out there.

The Cat

[sgee]

This is good

Many thanks for that thread - hate to clutter the forum, but this is exactly the sort of thing that makes it so worthwhile. I am getting a much clearer insight into what is happening and a (I hope) ray of sunshine on an otherwise gloomy day. Thanks to you all for taking the time to explain all these things!

[gooner]

split tax return

hi folks .. just wondered whether anyone has some advice on the most tax efficient way of submitting a self assessment that has income split by MP and limited company. i.e 6 months MP income and 6 months LTD income.

this is for 2007-2008 ... I stopped using MP after the agency i was being paid through ceased doing business with 'offshore' companies .. just after BN66.

A friend of mine did the same and has entered his MP income as self employed income along site the ltd income. .. is that the best approach?

thanks in advance. ..

[smalldog]

makes you wonder if they have decided to go after only property developers after all, they would fall fowl of capital gain due to the amount of asset off loading they do, however us lot dont have the same issue....

yippee...Ive got a very good feeling about this....

[poppy01]

Note the acronym for the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI)
Perhaps it should be OOPSI (DAISY)