An EZS is where members buy buildings in an industrial area deemed by the government as being in need of regeneration.
Normally, the syndicate member will put will pay around 40% of their share and then use limited recourse bank funding to finance the remaining 60%.
The syndicate member can reduce his tax liability for the current year in which the investment is made based on qualifying costs of between 90% and 98% of the purchase price.
The property can be disposed of after a minimum of seven years whereby the outstanding loan is repaid from the proceeds. If there is a surplus then it is returned to the syndicate members. Any shortfall is NOT funded by the syndicate members.
The reliefs end on the end of the 2010/11 tax year (i.e. 5th April 2011). So you will need to act quickly if you want to go down this route.
One company who invest in EZS is Chancery who can be contacted here.
http://www.truemanbrown.co.uk/
Friday, 11 March 2011
Thursday, 3 March 2011
HMRC issue new phishing scam warning
www.They are, in fact, fraudulent.
The emails provide a click-through link to a replica of the HMRC website. The recipient is then asked to provide their credit card details. Fraudsters use the information to try to strip funds from the person's account.
In the last three months, HMRC has shut down 99 websites that were responsible for sending out the fake tax rebate emails.
Chris Hopson, director of customer contact at HMRC, said that, as a matter of policy, HMRC will only ever contact customers who are due a tax refund in writing by post.
He added: "If anyone receives an email offering a tax rebate claiming to be from HMRC, we recommend they send it to mailto:/phishing@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk before deleting it permanently."
Should anyone receive a suspicious email claiming to be from the tax authorities, HMRC has advice on how to deal with it.
People should check details published at http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/security/ to see if the email is listed there.
Suspicious emails should be forwarded to HMRC at mailto:/phishing@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk and then deleted from recipients' computers and mail accounts.
Nobody should click on the websites or on the links contained in suspicious emails, or open any attachments.
If anyone has reason to believe that they have been the victim of an email scam, they should report the matter to their bank or card issuer as soon as possible. If in doubt, check with HMRC at www.hmrc.gov.uk/security/fraud-attempts.htm.
http://www.truemanbrown.co.uk/
The emails provide a click-through link to a replica of the HMRC website. The recipient is then asked to provide their credit card details. Fraudsters use the information to try to strip funds from the person's account.
In the last three months, HMRC has shut down 99 websites that were responsible for sending out the fake tax rebate emails.
Chris Hopson, director of customer contact at HMRC, said that, as a matter of policy, HMRC will only ever contact customers who are due a tax refund in writing by post.
He added: "If anyone receives an email offering a tax rebate claiming to be from HMRC, we recommend they send it to mailto:/phishing@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk before deleting it permanently."
Should anyone receive a suspicious email claiming to be from the tax authorities, HMRC has advice on how to deal with it.
People should check details published at http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/security/ to see if the email is listed there.
Suspicious emails should be forwarded to HMRC at mailto:/phishing@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk and then deleted from recipients' computers and mail accounts.
Nobody should click on the websites or on the links contained in suspicious emails, or open any attachments.
If anyone has reason to believe that they have been the victim of an email scam, they should report the matter to their bank or card issuer as soon as possible. If in doubt, check with HMRC at www.hmrc.gov.uk/security/fraud-attempts.htm.
http://www.truemanbrown.co.uk/
VAT Loophole Review Could Help Smaller Internet Traders
This has led to the practice of some larger firms opening warehouses on the Channel Islands. Items are transferred in bulk to the Islands before being re-packaged as orders for individual customers and sent back to the UK.
There is nothing illegal about the operation, which was first introduced to help Channel Island businesses sell flowers to the UK market. But some large firms have taken advantage of the loophole to sell a whole range of consumer goods.
Smaller firms have claimed that the practice places them under unfair pricing pressure, arguing that firms with the operational muscle to shift warehousing to the Channel Islands enjoy a 20 per cent cost advantage.
Richard Allen, from the Retailers Against VAT Abuse Schemes pressure group which submitted evidence to the European Commission, said: "The Commission are taking it seriously because this is a major distortion of competition within the Common Market where there is supposed to be a level playing field.
"And there certainly is not a level playing field on internet retailing in the UK. It's an internal market - it's supposed to be protected from this type of behaviour."
But the Treasury has now suggested that it is to investigate whether the Low Value Consignment Relief should cease.
http://www.truemanbrown.co.uk/
There is nothing illegal about the operation, which was first introduced to help Channel Island businesses sell flowers to the UK market. But some large firms have taken advantage of the loophole to sell a whole range of consumer goods.
Smaller firms have claimed that the practice places them under unfair pricing pressure, arguing that firms with the operational muscle to shift warehousing to the Channel Islands enjoy a 20 per cent cost advantage.
Richard Allen, from the Retailers Against VAT Abuse Schemes pressure group which submitted evidence to the European Commission, said: "The Commission are taking it seriously because this is a major distortion of competition within the Common Market where there is supposed to be a level playing field.
"And there certainly is not a level playing field on internet retailing in the UK. It's an internal market - it's supposed to be protected from this type of behaviour."
But the Treasury has now suggested that it is to investigate whether the Low Value Consignment Relief should cease.
http://www.truemanbrown.co.uk/
New Penalties For Undeclared Offshore Accounts
As from 6 April 2011, penalties for offshore non-compliance on income tax and capital gains tax will be linked to the tax transparency of the country involved.
The penalties could climb to as high as 200 per cent and will apply to both businesses and individuals who under-declare income and gains from territories which do not automatically share tax information with the UK.
David Gauke, Secretary to the Treasury, said: "The game is up for those going offshore to evade tax. With the risk of a penalty worth up to 200 per cent of the tax evaded, they have a great incentive to get their tax affairs in order.
"We have given HMRC an extra £900 million to tackle tax cheats because we are prepared to act against the minority who refuse to pay what they owe."
Dave Hartnett, Permanent Secretary for Tax at HMRC, added: "We are serious about tackling offshore evasion. Hiding tax liabilities offshore believing that you will never be discovered is no longer a realistic hope.
"These new penalties will increase the deterrent against offshore non-compliance. They build on other activity, including signing tax information exchange agreements, requiring information about offshore bank accounts and disclosure opportunities, including the Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility (LDF)."
The new penalties classify territories into three groups, which determine what level of penalty will apply for non-compliance.
The first self-assessment returns to which the penalties would apply are those concerning the 2011/12 tax year (to be filed by January 2013).
http://www.truemanbrown.co.uk/
The penalties could climb to as high as 200 per cent and will apply to both businesses and individuals who under-declare income and gains from territories which do not automatically share tax information with the UK.
David Gauke, Secretary to the Treasury, said: "The game is up for those going offshore to evade tax. With the risk of a penalty worth up to 200 per cent of the tax evaded, they have a great incentive to get their tax affairs in order.
"We have given HMRC an extra £900 million to tackle tax cheats because we are prepared to act against the minority who refuse to pay what they owe."
Dave Hartnett, Permanent Secretary for Tax at HMRC, added: "We are serious about tackling offshore evasion. Hiding tax liabilities offshore believing that you will never be discovered is no longer a realistic hope.
"These new penalties will increase the deterrent against offshore non-compliance. They build on other activity, including signing tax information exchange agreements, requiring information about offshore bank accounts and disclosure opportunities, including the Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility (LDF)."
The new penalties classify territories into three groups, which determine what level of penalty will apply for non-compliance.
The first self-assessment returns to which the penalties would apply are those concerning the 2011/12 tax year (to be filed by January 2013).
http://www.truemanbrown.co.uk/
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
Yet another IR35 case lost by HMRC!!!
An engineer working on a contract basis for Airbus UK won his appeal against HMRC’s determination that he should be taxed as an employee under IR35 rules rather than as self-employed.
Following a hearing in Bristol in November, the First Tier Tribunal found in favour of MBF Design Services. The owner/director of the company, Mark Fitzpatrick, appealed against HMRC’s decision that his employment status for the years 2001-07 fell within the terms of the Social Security Contributions (Intermediaries) Regulations 2000 and Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003.
In April 2003 Airbus took on MBF under a contract, via intermediaries, at an hourly rate that increased if he worked more than 35 hours in a week. The tribunal noted that the “request for services” to which the contract related included a seven-day notice period and a stipulation that substandard service or attendance would give Airbus a legitimate claim to withhold payment.
The tribunal notes that the contract agreed between one intermediary,Morson, and Airbus named 53 individuals and appeared to be based on one normally used for the purchase of goods, with MBF’s “quanity” indicated as 42,500 hours at his usual hourly rate.
The third contract between Morson and Airbus also included a clause setting out the client’s right to immediate cancellation of the contract, which was crucial to the tribunal’s decision that the terms were inconsistent with the mutuality of obligation that exists between employee and employer.
Noting that in the theoretical circumstances of a contract existing between MBF and Airbus, the judges ruled that the arrangements were typical of a contract for services. On site working was not a conclusive indicator of employment, the judges ruled. The nature of MBFs design work meant it had to be done computers at Airbus’s premises computers, in a similar way that electricians or plumbers frequently work on client sites.
Airbus’s right to cancel the contract without notice indicated a lack of mutuality of obligations, as did a series of occasions during computer failures where contractors were sent home without pay and employees had to remain on-site. Rather than seeking promotions, the contractor had to renegotiate with Airbus if he wanted better terms.
The tribunal concluded there was insufficient control to demonstrate a contract of service. Any checking and approval of design work was an inevitable necessity of the project work MBF had undertaken.
http://www.truemanbrown.co.uk/
Following a hearing in Bristol in November, the First Tier Tribunal found in favour of MBF Design Services. The owner/director of the company, Mark Fitzpatrick, appealed against HMRC’s decision that his employment status for the years 2001-07 fell within the terms of the Social Security Contributions (Intermediaries) Regulations 2000 and Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003.
In April 2003 Airbus took on MBF under a contract, via intermediaries, at an hourly rate that increased if he worked more than 35 hours in a week. The tribunal noted that the “request for services” to which the contract related included a seven-day notice period and a stipulation that substandard service or attendance would give Airbus a legitimate claim to withhold payment.
The tribunal notes that the contract agreed between one intermediary,Morson, and Airbus named 53 individuals and appeared to be based on one normally used for the purchase of goods, with MBF’s “quanity” indicated as 42,500 hours at his usual hourly rate.
The third contract between Morson and Airbus also included a clause setting out the client’s right to immediate cancellation of the contract, which was crucial to the tribunal’s decision that the terms were inconsistent with the mutuality of obligation that exists between employee and employer.
Noting that in the theoretical circumstances of a contract existing between MBF and Airbus, the judges ruled that the arrangements were typical of a contract for services. On site working was not a conclusive indicator of employment, the judges ruled. The nature of MBFs design work meant it had to be done computers at Airbus’s premises computers, in a similar way that electricians or plumbers frequently work on client sites.
Airbus’s right to cancel the contract without notice indicated a lack of mutuality of obligations, as did a series of occasions during computer failures where contractors were sent home without pay and employees had to remain on-site. Rather than seeking promotions, the contractor had to renegotiate with Airbus if he wanted better terms.
The tribunal concluded there was insufficient control to demonstrate a contract of service. Any checking and approval of design work was an inevitable necessity of the project work MBF had undertaken.
http://www.truemanbrown.co.uk/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)