HMRC fact sheet outlining the power to charge high penalties for non-compliance and when that power will be exercised in matters involving offshore.
CITATION OF AUTHORITIES – NEW PRACTICE DIRECTION
This Practice Direction, issued by the Lord Chief Justice, is effective immediately and affects all cases before the higher, crown, county and magistrates’ courts.
HM Revenue & Customs – Amendment to The VAT Guide
HMRC have amended the VAT Guide – Notices 700/1 and 700/11
It gives details:
a. of the current and previous registration thresholds for
- taxable supplies
- distance sales, and
- acquisitions
b. on the current and previous deregistration limits and
c. of the office where you should send your application form, request for cancellation or notification of changes in your details
This supplement updates the VAT registration and deregistration thresholds as announced in Budget 2012.
You can access details of any changes to this supplement since April 2012 either on HMRC’s website, go to www.hmrc.gov.uk or by phoning the VAT Helpline on 0845 010 9000.
You can access it here: HM Revenue & Customs.
Shame! – Corporate Giant that is Government – Black Beer – gate
Buried deep within the current Budget is a decision to repeal a relief from payment of excise duty afforded to “Black Beer”. And frankly I’m shocked, in fact astounded, at the tight-fisted attitude of this government that this measure manifests.
You can read a copy of the notice about the repeal here.
In brief, Black Beer is a product produced by one brewer in Yorkshire. About 35,000 bottles (size not stated) of the stuff are produced each year and the consumers are, in the main it appears, retired gentlemen in Yorkshire (ie OAPs – receiving state pension I’ll bet). Its got an ABV of about 8.5% and by the sounds of it probably knocks one’s socks off if drunk in quantity – apparently its mixed with other things like lemonade and milk (mmm yummy!).
It was afforded relief from duty back in 1931 in order to ensure the survival of the product which was threatened by a massive hike in excise duty at the time.
Why am I aghast at its repeal?
Because it serves no purpose – there will be, according to the government’s analysis, no impact on exchequer funds by the repeal.
What the analysis does show is that the business itself will suffer because the requirement to pay duty will impact on its costs and as a consequence it may close – I don’t know how many people are employed in the production of Black Beer but even 1 unnecessary redundancy is 1 too many.
Further, the little old man of Yorkshire (and the tall ones and the women who have a taste for the stuff) are going to have to pay more for their beverage of choice. And frankly in times when the purchasing power of the pound in one’s pocket seems to be declining on a daily basis and most pensioners struggle financially, that’s rather unfair.
And why are the government doing this – to make the tax system simpler.
It is sacrificing a business, the livelihoods of its employees and the enjoyment of its consumers in order to tie up a loose end and make the tax system look tidy. Black Beer is a hanging thread.
Come on chaps, there are far more serious “issues” with our tax system that need correcting in the name of simplification than this.
McGrigors Tax Round Up – issue 31
The latest issue of M-Tax published by the Tax Team at McGrigors can be viewed here: McGrigors M-Tax – issue 31 pdf
It contains a comprehensive round-up of the Budget and some case summaries for important recent decisions in direct and indirect tax matters:
Michael Prince v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 157 – jurisdiction of the tribunal on matters of public/administrative law
HMRC v First Nationwide [2012] EWCA Civ 278 – A payment by a company is either income or capital depending on the mechanics of the payment
James Alber McLaughlin v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 174 – payment sot beneficiary under a tax planning scheme
Macaw Properties Limited v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 167 – recovery of input tax in relation to transactions prior to the start of a business, objective evidence of intention
Gosling Leisure LTD v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 170 – “strict property law” not necissarily relevant to determining right to recovery of input tax in relation to premises
Shop Direct v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 128 – Repayments of VAT (and interest) are liable to corporation tax in certain circumstances (nb there are 4 appendices to the decision in 3 documents: 1, 2, 3)
Enjoy
Like this:
Amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules wef 19 March and 6 April 2012
Via White Book Rules alerter – March 2012:
Amendments are made to the Civil Procedure Rules introduced by Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2012 (SI 2012/505) and additional updates to TSO Update 58 in respect of County Court Money Claims Enforcement and the National Business Centre.
The new provisions come into force generally on March 19 and April 6, 2012 alongside Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 4) Rules 2011 (SI 2011/3103) – see below. The SI brings into force additional consequential amendments on court processes that allow the application to be made at the judgment creditors/debtors home court, depending on the circumstances of the case, without the applicant having to request transfer of proceedings first.
Amendments are made to:
Part 71 (Orders to Obtain Information from Judgment Debtors)
Part 72 (Third Party Debt Orders)
Part 73 (Charging Orders, Stop Orders and Stop Notices)
Schedule 2, CCR Order 27 (Attachment of Earnings)
Practice Direction 70 (Enforcement of Judgments and Orders)
Amendments are also made to:
Practice Direction 75 (Traffic Enforcement)
The 58th Update to the Civil Procedure Rules also introduces changes in a number of other areas. The amendments to the Rules are contained in two Statutory Instruments. The first contains Rules for implementation of the Terrorism Prevention Implementation Act 2011; the provisions came into force on 14 December 2011. The second contains Rules to facilitate the processing of work through the County Court Money Claims Centre and come into force on 19th March 2012. Amendments contained in the Practice Direction Making Document come into force on various dates.
There is a link to the MOJ site and the CPR in Useful Stuff on the right ->
Majid v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 144 (TC) (20 February 2012)
Majid v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 144 (TC) (20 February 2012).
Interesting decision of the First-tier Tax Tribunal as to whether a part-time Immigration Judge was liable to register for VAT as a consequence of his earnings from the that post.
The Appellant, although holding a practising certificate as a barrister, did not derive any income from practice as a barrister. This was a significant influencing factor leading the Tribunal that he was no liable to be registered for VAT.
Although only a first-tier decision and therefore not binding, this decision may have implications for barristers holding part-time office as a judge while also deriving income from practice as a barrister.
