seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Russia
seen from Indonesia
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from China
seen from Russia
seen from Germany
seen from France
seen from Russia
seen from Maldives
seen from United States
seen from Indonesia
seen from United States
DNS & Associates (“the firm”) is a specialized chartered accountancy firm promoted in the year 1994 by the professionals having rich experie
DNSAssociates provides customized consulting, advisory, and support services to help businesses achieve their goals faster.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
VAT decision threatens charity’s future
The additional charge relates to the Catholic charity’s construction of ‘move on’ flats, designed to help homeless residents transition back to independent living. The VAT was incurred after HMRC reviewed the charity’s description of services, determining that their definition as a ‘residential and life skills center’ rather than a ‘homeless hostel’ left it subject to VAT. Established in 1962, Caritas Anchor House provides accommodation for 230 homeless people a year. It also works with vulnerable groups, including those experiencing substance misuse, domestic abuse and mental health problems. Responding to the decision Keith Fernett, the charity's chief executive, said: “HMRC’s application of #VAT in this case is devastating to our work and to the vulnerable people we support. We believe we’re being unreasonably penalized for accurately describing our operations despite not changing what we do. “We have worked incredibly hard to deliver a level of service with a reliance on donations and relatively little #government funding. We hope HMRC will #reverse its decision, and allow us to continue making a huge difference to people’s lives. Otherwise our work is at risk, and local authority services will be put under greater pressure”
DNS Associates
DNSAssociates provides information on auto enrolment,SSAS. and SERVICES like complex sharing and director's loan planning which no other accountants can provide.
Call us @ 020 3582 4950 for more information
Dividend tax petition ignores the real concern
George Osborne plans to scrap the current lower tax rates applicable to dividend income with a new £5,000 tax-free dividend allowance for all taxpayers. The change was also accompanied by increased tax rates on dividend income. The rates will be set at 7.5%, 32.5% and 38.1%, equivalent to an increase of 7.5% overall where dividend income exceeds £5,000.
The petition was initiated by Frauke Golding, who runs her own business as well as being a financial director and accountant. She wrote that the tax “flies in the face of risk and reward for running a business and contributing to the economy.
“There is a real danger that this new tax, along with auto enrolment and minimum wages increases, will have a significant effect on those people brave enough to start up a business that could make a meaningful contribution to the economy and jobs market.” The reality is the government has a majority and doesn’t need permission.”“My view is that the dividend tax is broadly fair, particularly when you consider the impact of the reductions in corporation tax that follow it,” she commented. “It is not a vast increase and still leaves companies and their owners paying less tax than the same business run as self-employed - with no particular justification for the differential.
Taxation is a political question
The central tenets of Laffer’s supply side economic theory argues for limiting government and cutting tax rates, especially the rate levied on top earners, which Laffer argues will unleash faster economic growth.
A curious artefact of Laffer’s thought is the eponymously named Laffer curve. The curve resembles a boomerang, plotting the tax rate and tax revenue on separate axes. The curve’s logic dictates that there’s a point where raising the top rate of tax becomes counterproductive, decreasing tax yield. It’s beguilingly elegant, a simple non-threatening curve that’s easy to understand at a glance.
The problem with the curve is its wrong on two levels, both mechanically and philosophically. For instance, the curve argues that a 100% tax rate would stop all activity – but that’s not strictly true, said Richard Murphy. He pointed out, that this was the model under which Soviet Russia operated. “As a policy, it was absurd – but it does suggest the curve was wrong,” he said.
“It’s fundamentally useless,” added Jolyon Maugham, a QC and economist who astutely deconstructed the Laffer curve in a recent blog post. “There is no one Laffer curve because it changes from day to day,” Maugham said.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
HMRC needs to show more empathy
Parliament makes the tax law, but HMRC design the tax compliance system including the tax forms and procedures for penalties and appeals. Recently HMRC have been inserting too many traps in the tax compliance system which they say are there to prevent unintended tax breaks, but which catch out unwary taxpayers.
The £100 automatic penalty for late submission of a tax return is a good example. Appeals against these penalties create a huge workload for HMRC, and the costs of dealing with those appeals must surely outweigh the penalties charged. There are no available statistics on how many of those automatic penalties are actually collected, or how much of that revenue is reinvested to reduce the number of taxpayers who struggle to comply.
A good start would be to communicate with tax agents by email, so that routine matters can be dealt with quickly.
Supremecourt to rule on VAT 'restitution' dispute
The trusts recovered some of the VAT they paid from the managers, who made ‘in time’ claims for refunds from HMRC, Deloitte explains in a summary of the case.
But after exhausting claims against the managers, the trusts pursued 'restitutionary' claims against HMRC - seeking payment of the difference between the gross VAT charged by the managers and the net sums repaid to them by HMRC. One of the issues in the case was a three-year (now four year) cap on claims in the VAT Act.
In #February, the Court of Appeal decided that the VAT Act capping provisions did not apply to the restitutionary claims but that they were confined to the net VAT paid to HMRC by the managers.
The Supreme Court will decide whether money payable to the trusts should take account of input VAT claimed by the managers at the time they (wrongly) #accounted for VAT on fees charged to the trusts and what time limit applies to the claims.
The tax law time machine
Spotlight 25 follows the decision in the APVCO 19 Ltd and others, in which the taxpayers claimed that their property rights under the Human Rights Act were violated, as they were deprived of funds used to pay SDLT. The taxpayers had used a SDLT avoidance scheme, which was scuppered when anti-avoidance legislation was back-dated to 21 March2012 by FA 2013, which was passed on 17 July 2013.
The Court of Appeal rejected the taxpayers’ argument in APVCO Ltd, because the Government had clearly indicated that SDLT schemes could be the subject of retrospective legislation.
This decision is in line with Robert Huitson v HMRC [2011] EWCA Civ 893, in which the Court accepted that retrospective legislation can be effective, where the Government had explicitly warned of its possibility in the area.
In Spotlight 25 HMRC invites taxpayers to email them to discuss how they can withdraw from their SDLT avoidance scheme and settle their liability.
In an effort to nudge taxpayers to pay the avoided SDLT, HMRC says, “A number of users of SDLT avoidance schemes have already chosen to put this issue behind them and have settled with #HMRC.”
