This clarification relates to tax credits.
The ICAEW reports the following from HMRC:
"...‘We can confirm that the same principle will apply as for Self-Assessment customers, that is tax credits customers who renewed their claims in 2011, but have only given estimated incomes, will also not be disadvantaged if they call with their actual income on 1 or 2 February.'
Claimants who renewed their tax credits at the first deadline, 31 July 2011, but who did so using an estimate of their 2010/11 income, had until 31 January 2012 to supply details of their actual income. For example, a claimant might have used an estimate of income if they were self-employed and did not yet have final 2010/11 accounts in time for 31 July 2011.
The 31 January deadline is also an important one for those people who have not yet renewed their tax credits for 2011/12 – it may still be possible to make the renewal."
Tax does have to be taxing.
UK EXPATS: Reduce tax on UK Pensions
HMRC QROPS provider. Unlock your UK pension and access a 25% lump sum today.
Quote ID code "ABC" when contacting a QROPS specialist.
Professional Cover Against the Threat of Costly TAX and VAT Investigations
What is TAXWISE?
TAXWISE is a tax-fee protection service that will pay up to £75,000 towards your accountant's fees in the event of an HM Revenue & Customs full enquiry or dispute.
To find out more, please use this link Taxwise
Tax Investigation for Dummies, by Nick Morgan, provides a good and easy to read guide for anyone caught up in an HMRC tax investigation. A must read for any Self Assessment taxpayer.
Click the link to read about: Tax Investigation for Dummies
HMRC Is Shite (www.hmrcisshite.com), also available via the domain www.hmrconline.com, is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Hi Ken, seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16709780
ReplyDeleteThe BBC story about the Student Loans boss beggars belief. Presumably his contract has allowed for the grossing up of his Tax and NI liabilities (ie they are essentially being met by his employer on his behalf). This is a very lucrative perk which I only saw a couple of times in my entire career as a PAYE auditor with the former Inland Revenue and that was where a private sector company had engaged individuals with extremely rare skills. A supposed public servant getting this benefit is quite simply draw dropping.
ReplyDeleteIt looks as though the money has been paid via a an intermediary service Company. I though this was the type of abuse that IR35 was supposed to tackle. How come HMRC are quite happy to thump IT contractors with this legislation even when on quite short term engagements but allow someone who is essentially a public employee to get paid gross. Simply scandalous
ReplyDeleteOh i am sure there is a perfectly good reason why this person should be able to avoid his tax, the government always seems to be able to justify the sort of things that would normally fly in the face of common sense. After all they saved over £80k by doinf this. HMMM how much could i save the government (i am a civil servant) if i asked for my salary to be paid without tax and NI and then apply that across the civil service we could pay off the national debt in years!!! Simples.!! Will be watching the report on Newsnight tonight with interest, will be good to see if Paxo lets rip on any apologist who might be on there to reperesent the government. HMRC just cant seem to be able to stay out of the news can they. Wonder if Uncle Jack had any dealings in this too.
ReplyDeleteHe is Chief executive of the SLC so is clearly an officer of the company and therefore should be liable for PAYE and NIC on his earnings from his post. Moreover, the SLC is also paying his pension contribution of £28000 on top of his salary. How he has managed to presuade HMRC to allow him to be paid via a service company without deduction of PAYE and NIC is beyond me. He also appears to be getting expenses to cover the cost of his travel from his home in the South of England to the SLC, a tax free perk which needless to say is denied to most ordinary employees.
ReplyDeleteI just watched the report and it looks like the arrangement is just the same as when I do contract work. The only question that may need to be looked at is whether or not he should have been on the payroll or not and it looks like he was only employed for a two year period so I guess he is just a contractor.
ReplyDeleteHe is not a bloody contractor he is the Chief Executive Officer of the SLC. This is an 'office' as defined under Section 5 ITEPA 2003 and as such is an employment liable to PAYE. The legislation could not be much clearer but someone in HMRC has seen fit to ignore it. Why should they expect the great unwashed to comply with tax legislation when they so wilfully ignore it for a privileged few.
ReplyDelete"He is not a bloody contractor he is the Chief Executive Officer of the SLC."
DeleteHis terms of employment would suggest otherwise.