Jump to content

Recommended Posts

for many many landlords, book cookery is the only way they can come out even - given that BTL purchasers of late piad top ? for squalid little properties and assumed a decent annual capital appreciation offset any day to day shortfall in between income/ expenditure - a surrogate savings policy for many - i.e they subsidised their flat costs to reap the benefits when they come to sell.


The amount of loading you could stick on ofsetting items towards tax is open to interpretation by many and renovation/ upgrading as opposed to manintainence has been offset against any tax bill - naughty


I know people who ask for a summary of the insurance bill for their own home & their rental property and submit the entire figure against their rental income.The capital gains issue , whereby people move back for a month or two to restart their capital gains free allowance is an obvious way in whcioh people think they can circumvent the rules


I thuink many who receive this letter may rapidly rethink their views on how much of a crime tax evasion actually is

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...

The key point in that report is:


"HMRC can now cross-reference information from the Land Registry, stamp duty records and property agents? records with taxpayers? self assessment to identify culprits."


HMRC are looking for easy wins, and as such will always go looking for areas of the black/grey economy where they can obtain reliable information in bulk. Letting agents are an obvious target for information gathering - the rent they collect is income for someone. HMRC have been looking at (and prosecuting) landlords who have been not declaring at all for a few years now - it's an obvious next step to look at those who are declaring but, on the face of it, not enough.

I am surprised that a landlord would not have details of when his tenant moved in. Is there not a lease in place? Such shoddy record keeping could be indicative of undeclared income and it therefore seem reasonable that HMRC are cracking down on this particular sector of taxpayers. Those who have been honest in their declarations have nothing to fear and those who have not should be paying their dues IMO.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • What Firkins were they? The only localish ones I remember were the Phoenix and Firkin and the Fox and Firkin. The Plough has changed its name several times, and then back to the Plough, but to the best of my recollection the Uplands Tavern was named that until it became The Actress, and The Bishop was called something else whose name escapes me (though the smell from the gents lingers in my memory) but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a Firkin?
    • These statements were in the Consultation Findings report published (later than promised) just before the licence was granted:  "The site hire fee goes directly to supporting the delivery of the council’s Events service, which supports the delivery of up to 100 free-to-attend community events per year – please refer to section 1 (Licensing and income)" I've drafted an email to request some more details of these "free-to-attend" events, as "up to" is a fairly meaningless description - could be 100, could be none? - and therefore doesn't help anyone to decide whether it is actually a benefit to the community or not. Even if it is 100, I'm not sure I could name even one of them? "The site hire fee goes directly to supporting the provision of a grants fund – the Cultural Celebrations programme - please refer to section 1 (Licensing and income)" A similarly meaningless statement in terms of gauging whether, or how much, this is a benefit to the local community. What is it, what does it do, how much of the fee goes to it? And how can the fee go "directly" to two different things? Surely, "directly" means without deviation, straight to, without being changed or reduced?? Again, I'll be asking all these questions to the events dept. I find it outrageous & insulting that a public body can try to justify such an intrusive & disruptive event with such flimsy and opaque "benefits", with zero figures or details to quantify them. They may as well not bother with a consultation, just say "Look, we can't be arsed to justify our decision, it's happening so just deal with it".  
    • Thanks so much. Yes I have. Really appreciate your kindness in replying. Thank you.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...