Originally posted by TAF4
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Topic is closed
-
-
Originally posted by ContractIn View PostSo why isn't MontP helping us?
And to be fair, the JR (HC, CoA, SC) will have already cost them a pretty penny, especially having to pick up HMRC's costs for all the proceedings.
They have just lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights and they are committed to defending us through the Tax Courts.Comment
-
Originally posted by ContractIn View PostSo why isn't MontP helping us?MUTS likes it HotComment
-
Originally posted by TAF4 View PostThat's not a daft question when you think about it. Large Corporations engage lobbyists all the time. If my LtdCo could fund the contributions to Whitehouse I would happily increase the values commited by a further 50%. (ker-ching).
Is anyone able to provide guidance? I'll check with my Accountant later too.
From HMRC:
You should disallow the expenses incurred directly in connection with appeals to the Commissioners or the Courts against IT, CT or CGT assessments.
BIM46455 - Specific deductions: professional fees: tax, rating & VAT appeals
Finlay J having decided that the issue involved consideration of what is now ICTA88/S74 (1)(a) goes on to describe what is required for the expenditure to come within what is now ICTA88/S74 (1)(a), ‘wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade’. Not every expense, which a prudent trader meets, is deductible. Finlay J relies on the House of Lords dicta in Strong & Co of Romsey Ltd v Woodifield [1906] 5TC215 (see BIM37300). Finlay J says that the statutory test means that it is not enough that the expense should arise out of, or be connected with, the trade, but the expense should be for the purpose of earning the profits of the trade.
BIM37840 - Wholly & exclusively: expense of earning or application of profits?: legal costs in connection with an appeal
Lord Porter then explained why the specific costs claimed in this case were not allowable; the costs were incurred solely for the purpose of ascertaining a tax liability and nothing else.
Wholly & exclusively: expense of earning or application of profits?: accountancy fees in connection with an appealComment
-
Originally posted by moira under the stairs View PostNo doubt they are... its just that there is a leak amongst us with information getting into the wrong hands......... allegedlyComment
-
Originally posted by BolshieBastard View PostYes, because the amendment was tabled during committee stage then withdrawn. The bill then went on to complete its 3rd reading in Parliament and became law closing off that avenue.
Im afraid someone cocked up somewhere with this amendment. Some people said it was a 'probing' amendment and it was part of the plan for it to be withdrawn. But, the objective of a probing amendment is to obtain a Government concession not, as some claimed, to raise an awareness (an 'awareness' that gained the square root of nothing) of an issue.
Part Four: Amendments - Parliamentary Business : *Scottish Parliament
The probing amendment was a success as far as it went - it's just a shame that there was not more time for the matter to be debated. However, another oppertunity will be found.
It is rather unfair for BB to state that someone 'cocked up' and perhaps BB would like to reconisder his post?There's an elephant wondering around here...Comment
-
Originally posted by ASB View PostIf there is a leak does it really matter? The legal arguments have to be put forward in the pre trial submissions anyway so sooner or later the other side will get all the information anyway.
Also, during the JR the on the other side kept producing messages from the forum. I wonder why?
Here is a quote for court - I am going to <mod snip : any more of this BP and you will be banned>Comment
-
Originally posted by BrilloPad View PostIANAL - but I have fought a few legal battles. My Mackenzie friend (who is generally considered the best in the family court field) reckons you keep your cards as close as you can for as long as possible. You hope your research is a bit better than the other sides.
Also, during the JR the on the other side kept producing messages from the forum. I wonder why?
Here is a quote for court - I am going to <mod snip : any more of this BP and you will be banned>Comment
-
Originally posted by ASB View PostIf there is a leak does it really matter? The legal arguments have to be put forward in the pre trial submissions anyway so sooner or later the other side will get all the information anyway.MUTS likes it HotComment
-
Makes my blood boil
It's not personal why we are being treated like we are - so they say.
However, I does make your blood boil when you read this kind of report:
How much longer can Google escape the UK tax system? | News | PC ProComment
Topic is closed
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Autumn Budget 2024: Reeves raids contractor take-home pay Oct 31 14:11
- How Autumn Budget 2024 affects homes, property and mortgages Oct 31 09:23
- Autumn Budget 2024: Reeves raids contractor take-home pay Oct 31 09:20
- Autumn Budget 2024: Umbrella companies hit, Employer NICs hiked, and BADR heading for 18% Oct 30 16:54
- Autumn Budget 2024: chancellor’s full speech Oct 30 16:34
- RecExpo got told this about Labour’s Employment Rights Bill… Oct 30 09:10
- A limited company just got one over HMRC on VAT; here’s how Oct 29 09:24
- Business Account with ANNA Money Oct 28 15:51
- Top 5 Autumn Budget areas for IT contractors to tick off Oct 28 09:30
- Top 5 umbrella company expenses things to still do in 2024 under 2016's T&S rules Oct 24 08:21
Comment