Pro tax partner – Your Q responded on April 25
Pro tax partner – Your Q responded on April 25
Q
My client, director of a limited company, works at home. His boiler broke down in January and he paid for repairs to business money. As it is an expenditure that would be assured, whether or not he manages a company (such as the council tax), I see this as a non -deductible expenditure for corporate tax purposes, but I wanted to check with you in case there are provisions which would allow allege in this case, even partial, which I am not aware of.
A
We can confirm that we would agree with your conclusions. Unless the boiler is fully used and exclusively for commercial purposes, it would be a personal expense. If your customer obliges the company to pay for this, as long as the value is within the framework of the remuneration administrator, the company can receive a relief of the corporate corporate tax. However, it will be an advantage in kind which should be reported on a P11D.
Alternatively, your customer can reimburse the company for expenses, if he wishes to avoid benefits in kind.
To be part of the director’s remuneration package, their total salary, their benefits and their contributions to employers’ pension must be of reasonable value for the services they provide to the company. If these amounts are excessive, then the relief of corporate tax would be restricted.
Q
We act as accountants for the succession of a deceased person. The original lawyers were closed by the regulatory authority, so that the management of the succession has been transmitted to a new company. The funds of the succession have been inaccessible for several years while a legal survey was underway and has now been released.
In addition to the usual funds of the domains, the solicitors Regulation Authority has also approved a payment of the complaint of succession of their compensation fund as “payment instead of interest” of £ 17,105.20. I suppose that it would be taxable in the succession because I think that the remuneration of the interests of other regulators such as the financial mediator is taxable on an individual and I suppose that the same thing applies in this situation.
A
Payment instead of interest would be taxable on the estate, and it would be processed in the same way as’savings income ‘. This is described in S.18 Ita 2007:
“18 (3) The income is in this sub -section if it is –
(a) BOUNTABLE INCOME UNDER CHAPTER 2 OF PART 4 (interest)“”
“”18 (4) Income is in this subsection if
(a) He is billed under chapter 9 of part 4 (Gains in life insurance contracts, etc.), and
(b) An individual is, or personal representatives Income tax responsible (under article 465 of the 2005 income tax law (negotiation and other income) are responsible for article 465 of article 465 of this law). »»
Payment is likely to remain in the definition of interests for this purpose, as it is compensation for the funds preserved, see Saim2030:
Interests are not defined in tax acts. It is a concept of ordinary and contractual law. The laws of Halsbury of England define it as follows.
“Interest is the return or remuneration of use or retention by a person of a sum of money belonging or due to another. Interest accumulates day by day even if they are payable only at intervals, and is therefore distributed with regard to time between people successively entitled to the principal. ”
Q
I have a customer request:
“My daughter has a YouTube channel, and she became eligible for monetization from December – she won around £ 1,300 in 3 months, but payments are in my name because of her age, so I will have to declare them on my self -assessment and pay the tax accordingly!”
Is it correct, that is to say that the beneficial owner or candidate is my client if that is how he probably elected himself with YouTube, or if her daughter can be imposed on full income? Obviously then covered by his own allowances. I am not sure of the exact age of her daughter.
A
“YouTube allows children 13 and over to have their own channel, but under 18 cannot have an adsense account through which they can monetize this channel. They must link their channel to an approved adsense account held by an adult to receive payments.
Providing the canal is really that of the girl and the mother receives the income purely as a candidate to satisfy the rules of Youtube, then the income would be imposed on the girl rather than on the mother.
Ideally, that money must be separated from mom’s money, transferring it to a separate bank account to reception for example, to protect against the challenge of the HMRC which it is won – and must therefore be imposed – Mom. »»
The Post Tax Partner Pro – Your Q responded on April 25 appeared first on the tax etc.
