This is a round-up of what we found interesting in SME tax over the last couple of months and ahead of the draft 2011 Finance Bill.
Anti-avoidance
HMRC has created new teams to start making compliance checks into SME direct tax avoidance schemes. Obvious points for review include:
Whether the scheme:
A General Anti-Avoidance Act (GAAR)
Graham Aaronson QC has reported on the possibilities of introducing a General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) in to the UK's tax code. This would apply to tax as well as NICs.
Phone calls with HMRC (used in evidence)
If HMRC calls a client make sure that a transcript of the call is accurate and retained. Although HMRC says that it records calls, a recent Tribunal decision reveals that HMRC's impression of what was said in a phone call was not accurately recorded and more to the point not the same as the taxpayer's. The Tribunal believed the taxpayer's account of the call.
When matters like this come up at the Tribunal it can seriously damage your credibility if your evidence is found to be unreliable, as HMRC found...More
Employment status
This selection of recent cases reveal that nobody is any closer to defining sensible tests for employment status.
Not an employee
In Brian Turnbull [2011] TC 1243 a driver was found not to be an employee of a haulage contractor even though he used its vehicle. The Tribunal concluded that:
In contrast:
In Weight Watchers (WW) v HMRC, the Upper Tax Tribunal upheld the decision of the First Tier Tribunal and decided that WW leaders were employees. Key factors:
Construction industry and employment status: special factors
In PA Bell [2011] TC1234the First Tier Tax Tribunal considered whether a bricklaying subcontractor was a worker for NICs purposes. They found him self-employed.
The conventional tests for control were found to be affected by construction site specific factors which mean that a main contractor would always have overall control and the Health & Safety rules, which together dictate:
These need to be factored in when considering site workers.
Close Investment Holding Companies
Two contrasting decisions on CIHC are included in our Close Investment Holding Companies note. Top tip: if your activities are wholly or mainly letting to related parties and you state that in your accounts (the principal activities note) it is quite difficult to argue otherwise.
Joint Property
We have had two decisions from the Tribunals which illustrate how the doctrine of constructive trust is applied in practice. In each case property was intended to be held jointly but purchased in the names of a single individual. Both cases need not have got as far as the Tribunal if the taxpayers had been advised make formal declarations of trust. See Joint property: legal v beneficial ownership
EIS relief
All money raised must by issue of relevant shares must be employed wholly for the purpose of the qualifying business activity within a time limit of 2 years.
A company held cash in an instant savings account: the Upper Tier Tax tribunal held that this did not satisfy the purpose test and disqualified EIS relief, case: Christopher Richard Skye Inns Ltd v HMRC [2011] UKUT B25 (TCC)
See Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS)
Tax relief on loan interest
Tax relief is given on a qualifying loan made to a close company under section 354 ITA 2001.
No relief is available for overdraft interest recharged by proprietor, see W Green TC1502
See Interest relief: making a loan to a close company
VAT: single supply directions
Customs may make a direction to combine two businesses so that they are treated as a single taxable supply.
This may be expected when there is artificial separation of businesses to stay beneath the VAT registration threshold, but it may also happen in innocent cases. The test is whether the businesses have financial, economic and organisational links.
Businesses typically caught: husband and wives running different businesses from the same trading premises.
For example: where a husband runs an accounting practice, wife runs a bookkeeping and payroll bureau. We summarise recent cases in our guide VAT: income splitting (single supply directions)
VAT costs sharing direction
Charities, higher education colleges and other bodies may group together to save VAT costs. Reclaims are now possible for last four years.
CGT Entrepreneur’s Relief – part disposal of a business
Entrepreneurs' Relief may apply on the disposal of a business, or part of a business by an individual.
So when you sell off assets, are these part of a business or just some its assets?
Most of the cases in this area involve farmers selling surplus land, but a non-farming case heard recently by the First Tier Tax Tribunal illustrates the difficulties in determining whether the asset being disposed of is part of a business or its assets.
How this differs from farming cases? Farming cases tend to involve the disposal of farmland. The business remains farming before and after with no significant difference between the business carried on before and after.
See Capital Gains Tax: Entrepreneurs' Relief
IHT Business Property/Agricultural Property
In HMRC v Atkinson & Anor [2011] UKUT the Upper Tax Tribunal reversed the decision of the First Tier Tribunal: a bungalow let to a farming partnership failed to qualify for APR once the farmer who occupied it moved into separate residential care.
See Business Property Relief (IHT)
Christmas planner
Times and due dates for the next month
Avoiding late PAYE penalties
Our PAYE late payment penalties buster is a guide created for you to discuss with clients. It pays to change your behaviour, but with some irony we conclude not in the way that HMRC wants.
Appealing tax penalties
We have created a new summary which is really to emphasise the need to be active in obtaining and retaining evidence
|
Excuse |
Evidence/ key factors |
Deemed reasonable |
Not reasonable |
|
Postal delay |
A proof of posting certificate or receipt (this is not legally required) Evidence that the taxpayer had reliable systems in place to promote posting on time Taxpayer is a good witness: seems truthful/staff are reliable
|
Posted on time but still lost
Post office out of action C Runham and Mrs C Naramore [2011] TC 933 AT Davies [2011] TC1165 |
Did not leave enough time for post
(For HMRC): unable to provide evidence of time of receipt GV Cox Ltd [2011] TC 1172 |
|
Reliance on HMRC |
Copies of correspondence to/from HMRC
Taxpayer took reasonable steps to understand obligations
|
Misleading advertising campaign by HMRC Misleading advice by HMRC
Incorrect helpline advice from HMRC
Dental IT Ltd TC 1002
HMRC failed to issue paper return
NA Dudley Electrical Contractors Ltd TC 1124
Sent a paper return in error
Tower Leasing TC 1334
|
Taxpayer mislead HMRC
Did not provide full information for HMRC
Taxpayers/ employers expected to know deadlines, even if affairs complex
Taxpayer unreliable |
|
Reliance on an adviser - direct tax only |
Tax affairs need to be complicated for a taxpayer with average ability to be able to delegate responsibility |
Complicated tax affairs: Rowland v HMRC [2006] Spc 548
Took reasonable steps to ensure accountant had information, and was let down Rich v HMRC TC01380 Genuine mistake: thought that agent was acting A Leachman t/a Whiltely & Leachman TC 1125
Adviser ill and no time to find a replacement
Tower Perkins Products & Services TC 1380
|
Taxpayer should have been aware of deadlines
Could have appointed an alternative adviser |
|
Insufficient funds |
Proof that taxpayer made reasonable attempts to alternative secure funding |
Withdrawl of bank funding Paul Hoskins TC 1385
|
Lack of evidence that the taxpayer has explored alternative funding. Mrs J Holdwater JC 1330
|
Other points on "reasonableness"
A taxpayer must be a good witness and show the Tribunal that he honest and acts in a way that someone who seriously intends to honour their tax obligations would react B & J Shopfitting Services [2010] TC390
Penalties: what rate is reasonable?
Now we move into the new tax penalty regimes we are seeing some stark contrasts.
A Moran v HMRC TC 1420 PAYE failure to deduct on payments to bar staff: 45% penalties. The Tribunal said that it found that 55% abatement was generous.
D Collis V HMRC TC 1431 income tax on benefits the employee failed to declare them on her tax return and was fined 15%.
Our verdict: an employer will be deemed to understand its obligations under PAYE and so may be viewed as dishonest or careless if it fails to operate it. An individual may claim to be confused by the tax system. It probably helps that most judges find tax confusing too.
See Tax penalties: grounds for appeal
Latest tax consultations: at a glance
Modernising the administration of the personal tax system: tax transparency for individual
Considers integrating the operation of income tax and national insurance contributions: next steps
Our verdict: misses the spot, it is only for PAYE
Closes 24 Feb 2012
PAYE Real time information
Improving the operation of PAYE
Our verdict: passes even more work to the employer and a nightmare for share scheme reporting
Closes:9 January 2012
Lecturers, teachers, instructors or those in a similar capacity
This examines the repeal of the Social Security (Categorisation of Earners) Regulations>
Our verdict: a welcome simplification of NICs rules
Closes 6 January 2011
PAYE Pooling
Considers whether associated employers might like to group their PAYE operations.
Our verdict a legal minefield and unlikely to progress with PAYE Realtime reporting on-going
Closes: 15 December 2011