Reply to: Limited company and Subsitance

[QwertyBerty]

On reflection I am just making myself look an idiot on this forum so I think I'll sign off. Over and out guys it's been nice knowing you all.

Let's hope not. I think PUMA's contribution has been a great help here and one of the few posters I make an effort to read.

QB.

[NotAllThere]

I go away for popcorn, and by the time I return, one of the duelling couple has walked off.

[pmeswani]

On reflection I am just making myself look an idiot on this forum so I think I'll sign off. Over and out guys it's been nice knowing you all.

eh? From time to time we all make an idiot of ourselves. I do it quite often. No need to leave because your opinion is different to everyone elses.

[THEPUMA]

On reflection I am just making myself look an idiot on this forum so I think I'll sign off. Over and out guys it's been nice knowing you all.

[blacjac]

...
The reason I am quite often antagonistic towards some of the other accountants on here is that they are posting a lot of stuff which is simply factually incorrect.

...

Says it all really.

[THEPUMA]

What part of this is wrong exactly:

"So, if the Revenue deny your claim for subsistence you have no basis in law to appeal.

However, it is self evident that most Revenue districts will allow claims to a varying extent, but it is important to realise that they do this out of policy and not statute. The question then to ask yourself maybe is "Do I think the Revenue are capable of changing their minds and starting to disallow these claims?"

The bit that you didn't quote:-

OK, legally speaking you have no right to claim for subsistence.

You can dress it up however you like but it seems to be the case from your various posts on this subject in this and other threads that your firm has not been advising your clients that they categorically can claim subsistence in the circumstances described.

It is now clear from Bob Jones, whose credentials cannot be questionned, that they can.

My question to you therefore was whether, having received clarification on the subject, you would be advising your clients that whereas previously you may have felt that there may have been some ambiguity on the matter, it is now clear that they can claim subsistence as it seems likely that you have a large number of clients who have overpaid tax (and are continuing to do so) as a result of your lack of clarity on the issue historically.

[THEPUMA]

I have only been a member here a few days.... so excuse my interuption, however, I have been browsing through various threads etc. and I notice that you have quite a bit of input... but it all appears to be points scoring and putting other accountants opinions and their comments in a bad light..

do you actually have anything positive to say or do you just like being an antagonistic smart a**e??

i again apologise for being so bold, however, people like that just get right up my nose!

It's a fair point but have a read through some of my historic posts. You will find that there is a lot of constructive and helpful stuff in there. There is also a lot of relatively technical tax stuff which none of the other accountants tend to post.

The reason I am quite often antagonistic towards some of the other accountants on here is that they are posting a lot of stuff which is simply factually incorrect. Because they are accountants, if I don't correct them, the guys who read this board will rely on the information, assuming it to be correct.

Most of the time I just point out when stuff is wrong but after a while it gets so tedious and frustrating, particularly when it is the same guys time after time and then I have been known to get a bit tetchy, as you rightly point out.

From a commercial perspective it is also quite frustrating to see these guys charging very modest fees and sweeping up a load of new business when it is clear that the reason they can afford to offer such low fees is that they aren't paying for any training.

For example, take Just1morethen who claims to be a contractor specialist accountant but in recent weeks has displayed utter ignorance on the fundamental principles of both IR35 and income shifting, the two most important technical tax issues affecting contractors over the past years. It is clear that he hasn't been on any relevant courses or even read the tax press on these matters, which I find incredible from a professional pride (and professional indemnity!) perspective.

I know this may across as bitter but I'm actually not at all. It would be nice to get some new business from this site but we are growing very fast by client referral so it isn't that important to me. I am only really posting here as a bit of a hobby and because there are some good guys on here and I don't want to see them misled.

PUMA

[Alan @ BroomeAffinity]

I have only been a member here a few days.... so excuse my interuption, however, I have been browsing through various threads etc. and I notice that you have quite a bit of input... but it all appears to be points scoring and putting other accountants opinions and their comments in a bad light..

do you actually have anything positive to say or do you just like being an antagonistic smart a**e??

i again apologise for being so bold, however, people like that just get right up my nose!

[simondolan]

What part of this is wrong exactly:

"So, if the Revenue deny your claim for subsistence you have no basis in law to appeal.

However, it is self evident that most Revenue districts will allow claims to a varying extent, but it is important to realise that they do this out of policy and not statute. The question then to ask yourself maybe is "Do I think the Revenue are capable of changing their minds and starting to disallow these claims?"

Why is that odd?

We had a disagreement a year ago. I have just discovered unequivocally that I am right and you are wrong. Why wouldn't I post that?

As well as points-scoring, it is also in the interests of the contractor community (and your client portfolio in particular) to get clarity on the subject.

Can we assume that you will notify your clients of the fact that they can claim these expenses? Surely, you wouldn't want them to lose out on any further tax?

[weegordy]

Why is that odd?

We had a disagreement a year ago. I have just discovered unequivocally that I am right and you are wrong. Why wouldn't I post that?

As well as points-scoring, it is also in the interests of the contractor community (and your client portfolio in particular) to get clarity on the subject.

Can we assume that you will notify your clients of the fact that they can claim these expenses? Surely, you wouldn't want them to lose out on any further tax?

I have only been a member here a few days.... so excuse my interuption, however, I have been browsing through various threads etc. and I notice that you have quite a bit of input... but it all appears to be points scoring and putting other accountants opinions and their comments in a bad light..

do you actually have anything positive to say or do you just like being an antagonistic smart a**e??

i again apologise for being so bold, however, people like that just get right up my nose!

[THEPUMA]

Why is that odd?

We had a disagreement a year ago. I have just discovered unequivocally that I am right and you are wrong. Why wouldn't I post that?

As well as points-scoring, it is also in the interests of the contractor community (and your client portfolio in particular) to get clarity on the subject.

Can we assume that you will notify your clients of the fact that they can claim these expenses? Surely, you wouldn't want them to lose out on any further tax?

[simondolan]

Odd that you resurrect a thread over a year since someone last posted on it, specifically to try to knock your competition......


Anyway what I actually said was:

"OK, legally speaking you have no right to claim for subsistence. In order for an expense to be allowable it must be wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the course of employment (you are employed by your own Ltd Company). Case law is notoriously strict on this subject. A female barrister claimed once for the purchase of black clothes she wore in court. Fair enough you might think, but the claim was thrown out (at the House of Lords eventually I believe) on the basis that the clothes served a dual purpose - ie they were for business use, but also served to keep her decent (no sniggering please). Now, a barrister is self employed and so the basis of claim is actually less strict than that of an employee.

So, if the Revenue deny your claim for subsistence you have no basis in law to appeal.

However, it is self evident that most Revenue districts will allow claims to a varying extent, but it is important to realise that they do this out of policy and not statute. The question then to ask yourself maybe is "Do I think the Revenue are capable of changing their minds and starting to disallow these claims?"

Incidentally, following Bob Jones' post on this forum recently I spoke to him regarding the issue of whether or not subsistence was reclaimable by contractors working at a temporary workplace without incurring a benefit-in-kind and his answer was that it unequivocally was.

Yet another example of why paying a cheaper accountant can be a false economy. Both SJD and Nixon Williams have categorically stated on this thread that subsistence cannot be claimed whereas it clearly can.

[THEPUMA]

Incidentally, following Bob Jones' post on this forum recently I spoke to him regarding the issue of whether or not subsistence was reclaimable by contractors working at a temporary workplace without incurring a benefit-in-kind and his answer was that it unequivocally was.

Yet another example of why paying a cheaper accountant can be a false economy. Both SJD and Nixon Williams have categorically stated on this thread that subsistence cannot be claimed whereas it clearly can.

[ASB]

I wouldn't exactly say that - this from the ex Revenue chap:

"We eat in order to live not in order to work BUT if the employment dictates that you spend more than would otherwise have been the case then the extra amount spent is allowable. In real life this is impossible to administer so HMRC will grant the whole of the expense where you can demonstrate that more than normal was spent. You need to keep the documentary evidence - the journey has to qualify for tax relief (eg if you fall foul of the 24 month rule you cannot claim) "

Don't want to be picky - because you are all far more qualified than I am but this seems to be in direct contradiction to Caillebotte v Quinn

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/bimmanual/BIM37920.htm

I accept this is a schedule D case and might not be relevant.

[ittony]

txtony

Compounded interest and penalties.

Ha! Nice try indeed.

Try again?