VIP Video Library
The Irish Accounting & Tax Summit
Session 8 - Top Tax Appeals in 2020
Session 8 - Presentation
This transcript was created using AI and may contain some mistakes.
Um, so as, as a Ivana selling on Lucas, some of the appeals, and I suppose they’re the ones, the interesting ones that I thought were interesting, obviously the first one is interesting for my interview. It’s, it’s, it’s relates to her, to her own profession. Um, so might be a hot topic and something to OCA and relation to us.
Um, I always say this, uh, you know, tax appeals cases, they’re all with really good, the tax we of the commission. You just find them on the website and they get the determinations within there. So, and I always find them go because it gives you the thinking of the, the revenue and also the appeals commission. And the reason why I also find them Honda is because they bring together all the case law in relation to optic or talkie,
poppy recent, and the older case law. So that if you had an, a case in practice, you say, geez, I remember that<inaudible>, I don’t have to go and research every case that will, a lot of the work will already be done indoors. So the way I would usually do this is I would, I would have for each case,
I would say VRT, wouldn’t be a big thing for me or anything like that. One of the related to income tax professionals. So it’s our charge. What I can do is I, I track them on a spreadsheet so that I say, Oh, geez, this aquarium relation that. Now I know what it was a textbook case in relation, not before sort of my first port of call will be that Apax speed case to find out the various case law on the thinking relation to revenue on DP is commission for it all.
So as one of the things good. And as I say, it’s, I think it’s recommended reading, interesting reading, I would say. Um, and from staff perspective, if you do internal and trading, I always recommend how how’d they send your basis as internal training, because it’s going to be very beneficial, do staff as well. All right.
Now, hopefully now you have it there on your slides, um, in front of you to sell it. The first case we’re going to look at as a professional horse company surcharges. Okay. Swollen away at 2020. So I came up there a month ago about a, it relates to depression. So what’s coming surcharge, specifically case related to an accountancy practice.
Um, so as well as there’s all debate has deploy as a profession being, uh, I suppose picked on compared to, let’s say a carpenter avoid as a cat, why does a chain account have to be a profession towards, can we start a charge of them, uh, of, of 15% of, uh, of the 50% of the undistributed that trading income compared to any other trade?
So why are we being victimized as a result of counting on a professional? What does it matter? Like why should there be this legislation be there for the profession when it’s not there for other types of, uh, uh, trading companies or businesses? Uh, it’s it’s, it’s, it just seems very unfair. Um, obviously, you know, it’s been there for a long time,
but I think it should always be emphasized and highlighted to, you know, councilors, uh, TDS that this is an unfair regime and professions that are getting charged a higher tax, uh, as a result of it. And there’s no real basis for what is the reason for our really, you know, um, the fact that he went to Joel,
his professional towards when we started to charge, instead of having a corporation tax charge of problem harps, and the effective brings you up to a, to a 22%, if you haven’t paid a dividend through to avoid. So the legislation that is there is a section four, four, one, so effectively you’re into the search. So you’re in the surcharge regime,
who are the principle part of the income counting on professional activity, artist services, um, is derived from professional services, professional activity. Um, so Prince wrote prior to this case, went to the principal power. Yeah. Mean on, I suppose, the revenue on the taxpayer in this particular case, the accountant’s predictor of his all agreed that that meant where your professional income is income from fresh and service or<inaudible> is greater than 50% in relation to that.
So there’s no debate there. So if you’re, if you are an accountant practice are whatever professional practice, if you derive greater 50% of your, your income from professional services profession, or provision fresh and activity, well then you’re into close coming surcharge. There’s no way, but if you’re on there, if you’re more than 50%, well, then you’re not ended professionals.
Can we start charging<inaudible> you have to build and see how you would in, are you at 50% professional activities? If you are, you have a professional service company surcharge to come into play. I also relevant here I suppose, is that sometimes, you know, not necessarily profession might have, might have be sole trader partnership, and it might’ve set up a company,
the very service as far as at the sole trader partnership business and our particular cases. If, if there’s an invoice, if it’s invoice from the company, let’s say to the sole trader partnership professional in that case. Well, the company is also subject to cost when we started charged with section six and section 44. One is very clear is that where services are provided to the,
that the, the, the profession of partnership artist’s sole trader business at, they are the companies within the remit of the surcharge as well. So just be aware of that, obviously separate issue. They’re not just in accountancy companies, companies, companies that are charging. I said, the parents are sole traders. Revenue is always a hot topic for them to look and see,
well, look, how much are we charging between the, the company writing these maybe admin functions or whatever functions that they’re doing to, to sole trader partnership business wants to rate, or what is the profit margin on that? So obviously you revenue, Euro contending, in some cases, death, uh, you know, margin of potential, you know,
eight to 10% is too high and it’s not a fair Mac rates. So, uh, you know, the parents, you might not be allowed to elections. They will be back somebody deduction for the recharge of this card, uh, from the, the, the, I suppose the company that’s providing the back office support to those types of professionals. So that’s just another one as an aside in relation to it.
And it’s pretty good case that the worked on here, the people involved in relation to the accountants practices, audit financial accounts, bookkeeping VAT, and they had a special walk here and this year, so it was 2013 or 2012 and 13, and the charging unit they’ve they’ve, um, that they were looking at. So revenue have always been hot in this topic,
and they always had their own views, but this time it’s forced time to be brought out into the open tax appeals case. Um, I saw some of this here, you know, we’d say, well, look, why did the accountant put this or a goal down to this rule? Because there was a special type of walk there. And one of the years in the second year where probably the accountant was providing,
uh, I suppose the voice in relation to a share buyback and the valuation of the shares in relation to that, um, and he was saying that this is just an activity. It’s not surcharge. That was not professional income. Uh, it was something like 270,000, and there’s another 50,000 far given for factory nodding. Thanks for doing it. You did a great job.
So, you know, intro to tax, be information, the Peter’s commission question, he said, well, why did you do it? What were you doing? Why don’t you give any consultancy services, any, except the walls. So straightaway that appears commissioner effect. You said, well, in that case, are you aware by saying that, that you’re now going over 50% tests and you’re into surcharge there.
So he said he eventually accepted that he, that he wanted, that was the case. So that was a little bit, I suppose, naive from that point of view in relation to that year, because it related to, you know, the services fought where you gave him the accounting service consultants in relation to valuation companies, he was arguing, well,
I’m just valuing inline with constitution. The fact of the matter is he wasn’t accountant in practice. Um, I’m providing accounting services studies, you know, valuation companies share buy backs. So as a result of that had an income was, uh, was deemed to be a professional professional. And from what she had originally classified as nonfinancial professional, he was looking at his prints were prior to a test as part of that,
I suppose, in this predictor. Okay. So also that the PM’s commission didn’t S he said he didn’t see anything wrong with the way the allegation was Don. So it says principal prior to the income. So the way it was interpreted in this and this case was that you looked at your total time sheets or your chargeable hours for each of the elements.
And then you look to that versus the work done on non professional element, first professional element, where you’re looking at 50% test. So it wasn’t based on the recovery time was based in the actual time important relation to us when they were looking at the income, that’s how they decided on how they would allocate the 50% test to say, well, look,
what’s been important. The time sheets for each of these areas on, you know, that over the total failure time sheets in the year is that great. And 50% for each of these activities, every case we’re into this course, when we started charged, uh, at that point in time. So the PS commissioner says he hasn’t taught about too much that determination it out.
That’s correct. But it’s just that everyone agreed here and he didn’t see anything wrong with it, I suppose. So it’s wanting to take in time to suggest that he’s happy with that analysis, if it will go to an<inaudible> case.<inaudible> Okay. Yeah. Most of here in the office already, um, In this particular case, this was the crux of this case,
was this accountant effectively was he was doing financial statements preparation. And he, he, he, his argument was while in my accounts, financial statement preparation, I’m going to allocate the work done up to the trial balance stage as being nonprofessional. Cause it’s done by a lot of junior staff or some people are on, you know, you can qualify it or don’t want truly exams and eyeing after started bonding stage,
that’s a professional service. So he only allocated 25% of the fault fees in relation to that to professional services. And this was the argument of revenue or Sam, or look at this particular case, you are an accountant you’ve been practicing search your profession in this particular case. So what is the accountant? What the question was, what is this? What is the customer and being engaged in you to do,
they’re engaging you to prayer accounts preparation. And that is, that’s what, that’s what revenues and well, then the whole fee is effectively for that particular element for that element of it. So if you got a, and for our financial statement preparation, the fact that someone junior we’re doing 600,000 of this and 600 to 600 year old.world is irrelevant. The<inaudible> in that example is a professional service,
and that is a fake beef wash to pee. As commissioner found, he said, you can’t go and split it up. You can’t go and say, well, look, I’m, I’ve been engaged to do French state and preparation. And so I know I want to split the element, the element between professional rock and non professional rock it’s mission says that that’s not the case.
You are a profession professional, you are putting yourself out as a professional. The customers is paying you for financial state and preparation. So as a result, you can’t go and do that with that. The, the, the maxi case was a case that was put forward by the taxpayer, the accountant, they showcase as well. Look in that particular case,
there was a business owner provide a man who published magazines on a, on a monthly basis, but he was always a jar jar. Also journalist magazine as ads or Sophie was a profession in that case, that was for a UK case related to profit allocation for a UK, not, not surcharge here in those cases, but they found that you could allocate out the journalist magazine work for their contribution to professional contribution separately from the income of the magazine distribution.
Uh, I suppose you pay this commission. So I did that case. It’s there. Blackish stares is specific in that the business day, or was the provision of a magazine mainly. Whereas in our case, the accountant was providing accountants, you service as a profession. So you can’t go and split it. That was a separate type of case on,
and you can’t apply that to these cases. And as I said, revenue, we’re saying same thing, concert. If it’s an MPEG road prior to preparing accounts, did you have to go to the approach to get the end route and the end game? So on that basis, you know, state representative pepper preparation, it’s fully, um, professional service in relation to it.
And I know there’s a lot of detail and it’s drilled into the numbers a lot, but that’s the key books. You know, they’re saying, if you’re being engaged through French state and preparation, you can’t start breaking that down. We’d love try to balance stages non-professional. And after that is professional key thing is, and the peace commission said, no,
it’s all professional on, you’re doing your 50%, a great 50% allocation. The appeals commission here has data say, look, he felt, you know, the definition of a profession, obviously it’s not defined, the legislation has gone through case law. And it hasn’t been that help formulation, the definition that have been provided. So I suppose, but in substance part is that it’s,
it’s where you’re providing an intellectual, um, you know, intellectual, you know, uh, information like an accountant does do, um, they’re qualified under somebody monitoring that’s in my mind for her, you know, surcharge<inaudible> comes into play. Those treatings that, you know, you are qualified, you’re providing intellectual services on your, be monitored. Let’s say safety monitor,
whatever the simulation to us. So here that was all a big crew. So the appeal commissioner Dan Madonna, and said, well, look, I think in this particular case for finding the depression, we, we should look to ICA at what he was charged account in this particular case guidance in relation to this. And as we know, you know,
charter give you give guidance just much, much like the other institutes is what wine you need to probably for practicing certificate. And they have their various rules in relation to that. And they said, well, that’s a good indication as to what service are for, for, um, out of considered, you know, not, not, not, not professionally versus professional,
then when you have to start going for a practicing certificate. So it was accepted that, you know, even in the tax brief 48, that the revenue had out there and still have those, they say that bookkeeping payroll, um, VAT returns, they, they are, they are not surcharged, but put the key thing is, and the Keating would end at the next briefing is in their own,
right? So if you’re providing them as part of accounts, preparation, they are all effectively surcharge, but so that’s important. And that’s what the, the interest of chartered Institute also says, this it’s in their own, right? If you’re doing it in your own, right. But if you’re portraying yourself to be an accountant, provide another consultancy service,
and this is just a part of that, well, then you should be at your seen as a professional, you should be planning for taxing starts so on. You know, as a result of that, you will see that the revenue have updated their, their precious solar companies, star chart rules to say, when you’re looking at that, what are this,
our charge, a price that they would be looking at quadrant, what do the institutes say in relation to when you need to have approximate start or when you don’t need to have practicing starts? So, you know, now that’s a key, that’s what their opinion is. It’s to be as commissioner communion opinion there as well in relation to it. So just have a local data in relation to your own clients.
If you are in this area. Um, as I say, revenue did except here to bookkeeping this contractor for separately as a discreet service, probably fired for our bills, our policy, then it’s not a profession. It’s not part of it cause you’ve been just engaged to do bookkeeping. And if you’re in that case, what I would say is you should do whatever monthly,
quarterly invoices to make sure that you’re saying as far as bookkeeping services also relevant in this case was, you know, the just was brought up by revenue. Um, I’m by the Peter’s commission to the invoice that was raised for, let’s say the bookkeeping services say professional services. So that didn’t have this case because effectively he was accepted, that was professional services.
So if you’re into this, you know, you should, you know, identify it is for provision for bookkeeping services, for factor services, uh, for Poe services. So that it’s making it clear that this is a service it’s not professional service that you’re providing relation to those. Uh, so that that’s an important point as well. Um, so I went through the case and you’ll see that the case goes on for a significant number of pages,
but you know, the key points on page 61 there, um, effect we did, this was a decision that was made by the revenue and on the, the taxpayer in this case as to what they felt was surcharge booth, uh, our professional and our professional services. So I’ll just, I’ll just bring this up and just the extract. Okay.
So this is what the tax is. So obviously the taxpayer different, not as it was decided in the end that vote caving terrors is funded on drone, right? At, you know, nonprofessional, when you’re looking at your grades, 50% test manager be counted in this case, they said this was nonprofessional. But if you look at charters on guidance,
in relation to it, a spinal pack can start as required. They say it, the accountancy service include the preparation function rate cards, which including the management accounts. So in chart bookkeeping, basic bookkeeping as charged, it also says, this is where you’re inputting the figures in relation to us. You’re not, you know, once you get to the ledger system,
after that, you’re, you’re doing accountancy service on your interprofessional. But once you’re before that you’re into non-professional management accounts, data determined corporation tax, which you would correct income tax, all professional<inaudible> missions, they’re all non-professional financial accounts preparation. You know, in this case, I was, you said the whole thing, you can incorporate that down. That is all professional audit in this particular case.
Also I was, you know, the, the, the accountant here was arguing that well for audits, even for all this, we have junior staff or unqualified staff doing certain work and preparation work. And he was allocating some of their time to non professional. But again, the abuse, she said, no, that’s not, it have been engaged to not,
they don’t care. Who’s doing it. It’s all professional services, mechanical, splitting them out. Obviously revenue audits, committee, structure reports, college license applications, they’re all professional cashflow is corporate finance occupy professionally. And he had with the provision of staff through a subcontinent. And I suppose it was clear here that, that, that, that, that was provision of staff,
staff, far books, keeping services in relation to that. So I might just be, and especially guess was that shared value, give them a voice. Casey would say in that I was in relation to it. So it should always be assigned to a professional. And in that the one pushed them over for the 20, 20 Tartine year, I think in example,
um, Just two specific questions there, just to, um, I mean, you’ve covered, you’ve talked about, about, and German was saying, if you are 50, I both take 2% services, threshold or old profits cops with surcharge. So your question. Yeah. If you’re involving all the, well, it’s 50% of profits are surcharged. Yeah.
So you’re in and out. You’re not halfway, not even halfway would affect me. And then the poll, if you have separate income records for bookkeeping back services, ID is exempt from the surcharge on a pro rata basis to turn over. So you say that again. So if you have separate income records for bookkeeping or VAT services, are these exempt from the surcharge on a pro rata basis to turn over?
Well, I suppose when you have to look after though, is that linked to the same class, you have to look and see what look overall when we look at this bookkeeping and all the other services are regret and 50% of regret and equate and 50%, the whole lost 50% of the undistributed income is subject to the surcharge of 15% in those cases. What if that’s just,
if that’s just bookkeeping services and ask that question, if it’s bookkeeping service in their own, right. Greater than 50% of your income is from non professional services. Well then, you know, the full profit would be, would it be cocky relation to surcharge? Hopefully that answers that question. Yeah. So I suppose the lesson to learn from here and then was accepted by the payer commissioner that said,
look, you know, looking at the charge guidance profession in this particular case, um, you know, for the book cave hings they had a separate engagement letter. So that is again, it’s important that if you are going to go vote, it’s better to have separate engagement editor in relation to it’ll help your argument, regular invoices in relation to Sanford bookkeeping,
regular invoicing relation. Don’t have the word professional advice. Obviously, if it’s just booking this book, just bookkeeping, it muddies the waters. If not like I suppose, in this particular case, in my opinion, any account might muddy the waters by having by probably the revenue came in pushing for that, that special work to be signed to non probation.
When in fact, you know, really it was always on professional. So it was always going to annoy the revenue to a certain extent. It’s my opinion. And that’s why it’s being pushed so far. And it’s true. It is true to this, this, this side. So I suppose the always the key point here, and the key thing that I would always say is technically,
you know, if you looked at it, an accountant in practice is a professional. If let’s say my wife was a bookkeeper, she’s not going to charge the same fees us, what I would charge for bookkeeping, because I wanted to say I’m better at it or better yet, or not. You’d have the perception that you’re better at it in relation to it so you can charge a higher premium.
And so there’s always the rates that revenue could always say, if we want to do our look, the whole thing it’s because of the fact that, um, you know, you you’re, you’re, you’re an accountant impacts putting yourselves out to be freshmen, uh, and getting a higher premium price to the result of it. So I suppose that’s all of the risk.
They haven’t done that, that I’ve sat in and where bookkeeping is provided on their own account data. They’ll accept that it’s not resolved like before that rule change, there was a rule change, their number of school a few years ago. Now, before that it was actually all surcharge to be a matter of keeping or not. It’s only when that, that calm came out and it takes tax braving 48 has started to muddy the waters and for people to start to allocate out the fee invoice from relation to it,
the bookkeeping, as it sort of was most to conclude the field’s mission found in favor of revenue. So thankfully they, they looked at and said, look, the auditing any junior work in relation to our rock that’s professional, not just the preparation can split the work between the fee is fully the work done in relation to it’s fully professional. So allocated out in relation to that.
Um, so really it was decided data input in bookkeeping and non-professional, um, payroll and payroll is non professional. Assuming it’s just inputting a data, uh, stop time, regardless of level. Uh, their level of preparation is a profession, um, out of files, regardless of their level of professional relation to that and the special science for the share valuation and the share buyback lose a professional endorse case,
as well as, so you can see those, that food for Todd, for people, if you are advocating on that basis, you probably need to reconsider because revenue obviously have a, have, have some priests into your now, if undergone, probably be looking at this or you need to decide, uh, and look at this, like sometimes you’d see in practice where they’re in a group structure and,
um, they will have, uh, maybe did the professional services out in one entity and then bookkeeping services in another subsidiary in that group. The important thing is for that subsidiary, that’s providing bookkeeping services, payroll, you know, on, on, on VAT services, you need to make sure that that company is actually invoicing the customer directly. So that’s key.
Like if, if that, if that subsidiaries invoice the other subsidiary professions, obviously subsidiary lenders, there’s no point surcharge is going to be implying that bookkeeping subsidiaries by the key thing is engagement at or whatever else the invoices are all addressed to the customer at the final customer in relation to that. So that’s, that’s potentially how you kind of make sure that you don’t dilute.
You don’t have a surcharge on the full, uh, undisputed income. Like we were saying, once you go to 50%, everything is, is, is involved in those cases to the next case then, uh, was, uh, uh, Medica starts with, this is obviously a hot topic. It has been a hot topic for a number of,
uh, for a while. And I would would revenue this case, I suppose, to get to the end of it, the P S commission headed in favor of the taxpayer in his particular case. And it’s, it’s good news, but unfortunately, uh, just revenue put out and that already referred just a week or two ago, which me has,
has said that them and Erica and their opinion and flow comes right in service to GP services is provision of staff. And is that 22%? That’s not necessarily what the peace commission has found here. Um, what this case here, just to flag this case has gone to the high court. So the revenue aren’t happy with decisions. So they’ve gone to the high court together,
uh, at Georgia mint in relation to CNC. Can this be changed, Actually, John, I suppose it’s interesting because the determination there was signed in may, and I suppose, so revenue are really being dogged on it at the moment, like they’re appealing to the high court and they issue that he breathed there just in, in June. So I suppose they’re really,
I just say, it’s the only issue of this case. It’s only come out now. No one had to go on and they’ve put us on the alert thing to the mass and said, yeah, we still think we don’t hear what the commissioner said. So I suppose this is talked about in days basis at the POS commission found in favor. So as we know,
deals with this particular case was a doctor who had incorporated and they were revising their services to and association of GP. So kind of an name of our service association, uh, whereby he generally covered weekends, evenings, things like that. Um, and then obviously the out of hours service would be the questions to come in there. And he did deal with those clients and those cases.
So he, he incorporated his company. And so the argument of revenue are saying, because, because the company is providing services to the association, it’s fatty, but it’s, it’s provision of staff, staff, staff effectively. And it’s fatter for 23%, um, that the taxpayer was fake or saying, no, not, not, that’s, that’s not true.
I’m gonna go through the case combination to her. The company is providing serosa albeit to the, to the association. They’re actually from the customer’s point of view, the customer is still seeing this taxpayer. So the doctor, Florida taxpayer, and he’s given the advice. So from the customer’s experience, the person is providing the medical services. In those cases,
they are directly involved in provision of medical services. So there’s no VAT on the, on the, on the chart, on the, on the charge today association, those cases was there was a part in here that in this case, you know, sorta had the doctor, the doctor was the owner and shareholder of the company. He was a director of the company.
Uh, obviously I, I co I limited are not unlimited company. Can’t our company can’t have, they can’t have a practicing certificate to do medicine. And the profession damnation Lawrence has to be, has to be in the name of the individual at which you’re concerned, what the company did, can contribute to part of the insurance as far that employee, who was the doctor in that case.
So that was important because that meant probably would a company pay for an employee service if you’re providing medical services. So, you know, that’s what the PT commissioner came to conclude is whether in relation to it. So the doctor saw patients diagnose them, you know, as, as, as you would in his own practice. So very little involvement with association.
So, you know, while association, they give a books, uh, you know, big give handouts, they need to comply with these. Um, there were very, it wasn’t huge amount. There was a clinical director there, but she talked to maybe refer you, you know, in relation to the case, you might’ve talked about likewise, the medical director of the association would have came back to him with questions on matters that he had on under doctors in relation to it.
Um, so revenue, again, we’re saying, look, because the doctors being given, I suppose, principled procedures in relation to the association, he’s under control of, of the association. So this is why it’s staff services. He’s, he’s not under control. He can’t control the South South. He’s told how to act in relation to it that in fact,
wasn’t the case, the doctor here goes, he meets the customers. He doesn’t go on check with the medical director was known, you know, he decides that it’s time, right. Diagnosis, and what do I give them? So there was no huge involvement management control in relation to that doctor, um, which had the case here to say what,
because the company, the taxpayer being the company choose employee was providing the so’s directly on his own, a card with very little management or any control. And from the association, they were deemed to be providing a medical medical service exempt from VAT as a result. So there’s wrong case here. So in relation to, and nobody disputed this case, a company can still be providing medical services to Kogler case is the key case that’s involved there.
And they had the term that look, you can be any illegal from as long as must be provided by parts, but necessarily qualification this case towards a shareholder employee of the company was, you know, had the qualifications, uh, consistent with tuition costs, medical services on fiscal neutrality. So effectively fiscal neutrality effectively as there is that this exemption of fact here is to reduce the cost and customer.
If you start charging charging five to associations, would that means the association would have to charge about more back to the customer. Again, increasing the cost. That’s not what the spirit of the exemption is. Therefore, um, likewise fiscal year, Joe tragedy, if I’m operating to a company versus an individual and I have charged VAT and they don’t, well,
then that’s not fair. You know, that’s not what, that’s not what the fat legislation allows for, and it shouldn’t be gone on that basis. Um, and I spoke to customers from the customer’s experience, point of view, they’re just seeing this as being a provision of medical services. They don’t necessarily care who who’s providing those services. They are going to pay the same money at that point.
So it prevents fiscal new charity means unfairness and competitors of wank betters the company versus another individual going look with different, with different prices. Why would you have that? That’s not what fat legislation says. And that’s what came out in a cooler case. Um, again, revenue’s key argument here was, look, they’re not providing service defining customer they’re providing services association.
Um, they can ended up the medical director had control of the director and the doctrine means services on the basis that they were given a policy book and the contenders to service by director of separate and distinct from the so, you know, the doctor’s company would charge an amount that would be different and will be charged to the end customer. That’s what their contention was.
But, you know, the appeal commissioner said that wasn’t the thing, an issue here heating for the customer’s experience with medical advice has been provided by that doctor. They didn’t care who was being, you know, who was providing the service as long as we provide it to them. So the legal form didn’t matter. You look to the transaction overall, look at the exemption,
this particular case, the company hadn’t signed an agreement, uh, between with the association. It just wasn’t daunted and feel it was needed. I suppose, in cases I saw, I was practically in revenue audits where there’s no contract, it does help revenue’s case to, to, um, to try and apply it about 23% are if the contract is badly written,
that it’s far more likely service, uh, you know, RFR to provision of a doctor, or they’re not necessarily would say the companies providing services as a, you know, kind of an agency in a way that’s always right, and staff and relationship. Whereas if the, if the contract is saying, as far as the provision of medical services, that would help your argument in relation to,
but a lot of the times those contracts weren’t in place after the war on place, the wording was wrong on gay men made it very easy for makes it very easy for revenue to contend 23%. And so if you are looking at, this is what this, in a part, in case there’s an area you’re in with doctors who have are low, who have companies on corporate,
have a look at this case costs. You want to all the case law, there’s a lot of case law on this in the UK and the case law has been recent case in relation to it. And this is where I think the IP his commission has been has, have, has decided his case. He looks at the recent UK cases and in case of which are very similar to this case,
that the, the UK, the legislator effectively determining that, um, it was still exempt on the basis that, you know, there was, there was no direction read or controlled by dissociation in this case, the director’s side, what he’s doing and how he’s going to do it at that, the UK cases that have been an Okta, um, they have said that he’s possible that,
you know, sometimes it wouldn’t be bad that’s if let’s say in a case, there was a case starts to just think of the name that our city fresh Charles, his name is UK case. Uh, you know, that was a good case, which supported the taxpayers’, uh, uh, contention out of his exam at there to re there was a company providing a doctor to the head,
to the national trust. Uh, again, you know, at once you will look not a doctor as a dentist, sorry, and the dentist was providing their own service, the fighting on, you know, you know, doing the teeth, work themselves, uh, you know, there was no way to supervision by Dan HS in relation to them.
So as a result, it was deemed to be an exempt service in relation to us. Um, there were the, the revenue had a, had another case, which was their UK case, which was a Sally marrow case on, I suppose, the way that the PAs commissioner said that’s not the same type of case. So Saudi matter was a,
uh, company that provided, uh, narcissists, uh, in this case, on the, uh, the argument, it was a term that case there was a provision of stock. And the reason for that was because the nurses didn’t do to medical service. It was usually gone by, let’s say, a doctor sort of nurses were only involved in it.
They didn’t provide the service to the customer. So as a result, it was deemed to be a provision of staff in those cases, because they weren’t involved in the actual provision of the service. Whereas in this case, you know, the doctor was there. He was his whole soul share director of that company. He was part of given the advice to the end customer.
So that wasn’t that study Mauer, wasn’t a playground in this case. Instead, the waiting was put on the case on the city, fresh service limited that UK case where it wasn’t nearly identical federal case. And they found that because of the management and control, it was within the realm of the appellant or the taxpayer in this particular case that, um,
that is why it’s considered to be an exam service, uh, as a result. Awesome. So as well, as, as I said, the taxpayer provided medical service, the end customer, that the fact that the provided the main finance infrastructure, handbooks guidelines, wasn’t really relevant. I appeal commissioner found cause they were all just, you know, helping the service to get it done.
Both the actual work of the medical work was done by a dispute for the employee of the parent company. Um, again, no direction of management supervision and control of the medicines as advice to patients. So of the doctor’s advice, um, the fact that the company paid profession and should them many insurance had the case probably will be and, uh, you know,
a cost towards, uh, an expense towards the, across the professional service, if you want providing professional service are, uh, a medical service. So that helped the case. So again, things that you probably should think about, um, so revenue on, correct as a law sought to reduce cost medical care. So fish can your child either we’re saying,
um, and the revenue trying to contend that the service wasn’t to the end customer and I should be charged it wasn’t in line with what, uh, previous teachers, uh, CGA case I’ve said, um, in the end at the, at the, at the end of the, the, the, the, the, the case, the extra PD commissioner,
he, it, in fact that the association could be more seen as an agency, as opposed to a company. And in those cases, our revenue, obviously aren’t happy with the decision on, as we said, we’ve updated their guidance as a result of, but if you’re in this, you’re always trying to, in that area, I’d say either that case revenue haven’t changed your view at both,
you know, it’s a step in the right direction. And it also helps in revenue audits. If there, if you’re trying to push anything, there’s a lot of cases in that, in that particular determination. Cool. I suppose that they’re, they’re the biggest cases, I suppose, most clickable, I suppose, for accountants is the first one, the second one,
we’re just, we’ve got a lot of queries in relation to us, um, in relation to medic exemption, the way it is movable feast, I suppose, contracts are important that said in that case, to be able to commission such a contract on the end of the day, at the end of the be all and end all, but they will help any case if you have,
you know, provision of medical services, sports provision of staff or no contract at all. So the next question, I always tried to see what watched the learning points from Asia days. So you’ll see, it’ll have a relation in each one as to what it is. Um, so this particular case, uh, relates to<inaudible> director company, uh,
sorry, on more than 50% or more of the company, uh, dementia’s a successful, examined ship ships in the desert written off, and they came over as socio Avenue. It ended, did a notice, um, where they notice them on paid Poe. So there was no, there was finished employees, paid wages, both the plaques wasn’t paid over to the,
to the revenue. So they tried to assess the individual section nine nine. This is the key key point is whether here is, if you feel that you’re potentially in a situation where you’re going to go into liquidation, accredited, voluntary liquidation, and you have a VAT liability and a Poe liability, make sure that you have the money pay off PYP, that Poe liability for us,
because section nine, nine, seven, eight kind of kick the veil of corporation off the company and assess that on the individuals. So in this case, let’s say this director here had got a salary. The company had paid over to PYP or Josiah and hard on his salary, but it hadn’t paid it on the employees for section 907, eight is written in the case of prayer.
And POI has been paid over on the director’s salary, but not on the other employees and salary. The revenue can deem that, that it should have been paid over on the employee salary as opposed to director salary. So what does that mean practically? That means if revenue are successful and they have been successful in the previous recession, they can effect on various case of rent,
true that the business commission have shown just in the last couple of years. And is that, you know, let’s say when, when, when the director put you in a farm 11, he’ll put it in his salary, whatever he got from there. And he won’t get a deduction for P E credit that was deemed repaid by the company. I was paid by the company because obviously that’s the payment for the employees is not for you.
So you give me the tax from that salary at thanks very much. That’s what revenue we’re trying to do in this particular case. And all of a sudden it started when they looked at the books and records, they did certain in 52,000 that they felt was Saturday. Saturday, the director had said, well, actually that’s not salary. That’s repayment. The money that I put into this company that’s to try and keep it a thought.
They said, show me the rate cards. He said, they, they said, show me the right cards. And they said, well, they never provided the venom w with direct cars, the taxpayer said, well, you never asked me for them, uh, immigration. So how could I provide them? So they went and put the assessment up and said,
you haven’t given us evidence of they bar. So we’re assessing that to a PYP or site. Give us that. I suppose that’s a key lesson again, on our lesson here, after our repayments of director’s loans, that you have documentation in place that this is a repair of the director’s rolling. So that’s there, I suppose, that’s within the P value modernization rules themselves,
and the guys that have issues, if you’re ever doing a repayment of a director’s loan, make sure there’s documentation on file as to what it is to stay away from revenue from broken. Cause if they’ll, they’ll take it to be, um, you know,<inaudible>. So in this case, you know, the tax payer except decided section nine 97 this year,
but they’re saying we didn’t examiner ship here on examiner ship legislation and companies act 14. What was pre-contact 14? This case was at chomp nine, nine, seven, eight dash. The fact that they are looking for salary from Mina or looking to assess under section 970 has no relevance because as prior to the companies act, when you do an examiner ship,
the revenue signed into, they were going to give all this including contingent that’s, um, once they decided to take to write down. So they were saying they can’t, they can’t make me pay to account, assess me on this because of the fact that, um, they’ve already agreed to the examiner process to write it off. Some of the, that so effectively the peace commission found in favor of taxpayer said,
look, forgive us for the P debt. At the time of the exoneration took away the ability for revenue to claim against the director on section nine 97, because you know, the wording in the companies act 14, overrides any other legislation in relation to us. Uh, so, you know, based on vocal intersection nine, nine, seven, eight,
and you can’t raise your assessment on the company for the extra salary that they deemed to be salary, which the taxpayer will say, what was her pain with the director’s loan because of the fact that when they forgave all the debts, this is a period before to date and forgiven forgiveness. So they can’t go and reassess it because cause they signed into the fact that any contingent liabilities that exist today were also forgiven.
So taxpayer didn’t have to worry and needed to companies. Uh, the taxpayer’s company have to worry about it because a exoneration pro process over that roared, it was a good case. And the next one, the same ID, um, picture director, the company went next one again, company, when I did the examiner ship, examiner seminar was appointed.
No seller went into put no, no seller was found. So rent liquidation eventually, uh, coincidentally, before when the examiner ship, all the POA PRSI was paid for joined the exoneree ship, the examiner, obviously card wages, and then they couldn’t pay us. And effectively under nine, nine, seven, eight, four, the revenue said, look,
you’ve, you’ve paid employees, wages, you haven’t adopted your taxes, but you have had, uh, you have paid them. Some people are you’re on your own salary. So as a result, um, we’re going to take the POA credit off you and your farm level, and you’re going to pay us a tax as a result. So in that case,
you know, the taxpayer was saying, how is it fair? I had paid on my POA PRSI before the examiner was appointed. And I consistently told the examiner, Hey, the PYP, the pay to P U Y you know, other people were paid, including the, I think the liquidator and the examiner got a whole heap of money, sort of not left for either parents.
And he was arguing well, they got all the money. I think there was a even revenue and ended up the prices were high for the examiner ship liquidation. But the appeals commission said, look, can’t do anything here as to what was done. In fact, the matter is that there is a debt or to the, to the revenue, whatever somebody’s examiner or not.
Uh, that’s, that’s a separate issue. I can’t account a pine with that. The fact that matter is there is money on section nine and seven allows to happen. And now as a result, we will take that credit off you and your farm live. And so we pay tax on your salary in those cases. So key point, if you pretend you’re on a little bit worried about going out of business,
make sure you keep the POI PSI up to date, uh, as opposed to the vast And John, just the questioning from Francis there. So if I’m the revenue hour, if they are successful in claiming under section nine 97, is the director tax on the next amount drawn or the gross amount Thought that that’s kind of, I suppose, uh, bargaining to a certain extent.
So it it’ll be, you know, what, what salary dent generally was he paid? Okay. So if, if he would pay the salary, uh, it will be what you won’t get credit for that if he was paid a salary, let’s say 100,000 and he would pay it over POA 40,000, well then a hundred thousand would be assessed. Well,
it’s not that they’re assessing the tax of the employee on them. It’s that they’re taking away the credit Taken away the credit. Okay. Okay. Okay. Yep. Um, the next one is just important to books, right? Cars always make sure if not, if you can’t prove it well, then, you know, the appeals commissioner is always going to hold and favored revenue here.
So this is a prob premises again. Uh, so the books and records were very poor. Didn’t have money books and records. So the revenue is to do, they did a cost plus exercise and undetermined the markup. Well, this is how many supplier invoice you have. So we know from our America base, the price that you say you charge for your drinks is X,
Y, Z. So we’re going to apply this markup on this amount. We’re going to assess for honors declaration of sales, and we want five in relation to that. And then as a result, you understate moving compacts in those cases, taxpayer, obviously wasn’t satisfied with the markup. He said, I think it was that started at 109% was a markup.
They’re not satisfied. Um, then they counted,<inaudible> 88 points in a cake. So, you know, the full amount is just test requires, you know, there’s always ways to, in relation to freebie or given out things like that. Um, so he wanted the reduced, there was no Taylor roles as the rage maintain the Tylenol records of waste maintained.
So, you know, I was always here for the taxpayer to prove that the revenue were wrong. They didn’t have a huge amount of records to prove that fact. So in fact, read the PS commission and found that, you know, the assessment that sand, pardon, approves some taxpayer, they could invite books and write cards. Um, and there’s a requirement there under section 84 and,
uh, on regulation 27 of the back regulation, I mean the Henrik arts. Uh, so, you know, just make sure if you’re a nutcase of some people might have an issue anywhere that potentially they were understated, but if, if, make sure that you maintain the<inaudible> sorry. And at that point, you know, so that’s their four to six year period again,
same Rwanda books and records issue again, retail business. I think it was, it sounded when reading the case seemed like the soup business and looked at the margin in two years, you know, cause there were compared to previous years to bark on the margin, the tall at DSS funded declaration salaries and wanted the VAT on that, on that the person involved,
you know, he took a step back, but he hadn’t got paid during that time on, they said that his own means suggested that he was getting money somewhere. So they ever want to assess the POA that the honor declaration sales has been PYP or SAP, cause he’s got, he’s got that money personally. And again, no records in a number of vendors,
video sales. So all they had was a book total Cashin in today, less than, and this is the figure. There was no big of, you know, what were the individual sales pro products were beyond at the amount paid on those sales per day are the products that were sold so that there wasn’t sufficient records there. So again, you know,
there was an exercise donut as to what to do based on what’s here in the margin, in the business revenue to draw and calculation as to what markup should apply. Um, I did to turn in the macro 140%, uh, tax taxpayer again, was happy in relation to that. He said, we’re looked at with stock stock there that was sold,
joined that year, you know, got a lot less price and it was being carried out. So, you know, I don’t believe that, you know, your mockup is right, right. Again, the penis commissioner said the burden of proof was placed and the taxpayer paid commission effectively found, you know, the calculations and substance of the revenue at Dawn a war while.
Correct. But he did reduce the marriage. And for the fact that there are certain other types of products, which had less American margins to 80 or 98% and they just did the POI PR. So as a result of that as well. So I can see it’s it’s in revenue favor. If you don’t have books from write cards, the re this is another one,
just a 68 fat retire, right to entitlement 450, 1000 then VAT. So very, very, obviously big, big money. And it’s just important to hear is just be always aware of fraud and have procedures to be able to show to procedures. You’d talk to ensure that you are happy that the parts, that issue of invoice wise in the general business.
So this particular business was in Petro business and they were contacted by a third party. Um, so at arrangement was that, did they get an invoice from an electrical agent and that they would pay some water to third party? So, and then, uh, you know, obviously the revenue came in and they looked at these and they said, well,
look, did you not think this on the payer commission obviously interviews and said, you’re not to think this is literally strange that, you know, you are getting an invoice from one person, you were paying them. He said, I did take a little, you know, little bit, but I just thought, well, look, that’s the, that’s the agent for our that’s the sales rep Fordham’s so I’m paying them.
But he did say that he’d get a little bit scary. And after awhile I did ask him, can I get, can I pay to the amount to the person who was invoice that our candidate dealer invoice? And that was Don, he said that he did that, not sound a little bit strange. He did accept look, he taught, he just taught.
It was standard. And off this sales rep, Don in relation to us. Um, so obviously these, he, then he then was asked, you know, did you not test it? Did you not test the Petra, the diesel or the petrol there in relation to, and he said he did test it on. He was asked, well,
you’re not aware that there was a, you know, this type of arrangement going on. Um, he said he had heard about, we shouldn’t have hit this case. So effectively was found here at the Raven, you were six, you know, rising getting into four or five on K didn’t allow to input because he should have ought to have known that it was involved in fraudulent transaction.
Given the nature of the, of the range that was in place. The fact that initially he was paying a different person than the invoice has been sent to. Um, the fact that he had actually got the DS and tests themselves, you know, seemed to indicate that he was, uh, he was a little bit worried here. He ought to have known to a fraudulent transaction.
So here are the big money for obviously for the business for 450 on K um, I will pocket as a result. So be aware of that and make sure you have legitimate, uh, that you have something to backup, how you determined that this person was in business. So, you know, chicken fat numbers or whatever, both started checking to places.
Uh, you know, if there’s an address to check that through the next year, physical address, things like that, like this particular person always dealt with this rep sales rep never taught ringing this. Eddie’s never think about ringing the actual case of buyer here. She said, no, are y’all just, just trusted, direct in relationships. So I was always questioned was at ones that are a,
with different, you would have to say, well, did he know? I’m sure there’s like more to look put. Yeah, unfortunately that one sounded a little bit dead in the water from the start, John, as compared to like some of the other, some of the older cases you’re looking at there with back open, but anyway, And the next one then is a stomped Judy Case.
So this is section 46,<inaudible> consolidation X sub sale arrangements. So this is where obviously the rules have changed a little bit, but it’s fair. Let’s say I buy, let’s say land off Yvonne. And then I arranged for maybe to build an outhouse or to sell the land onto, let’s say jr. In that particular case. So on sand,
instead of me having to pay stamp duty on the acquisition of the land from Yvonne, um, if you’re in a soap sale arrangement, the end customer would pay the stamp Judy, on my sales price that I sell to jr. And that case at there are the vines there. And if the consideration paid is 25% or more,<inaudible> doesn’t apply into full amount is the subject on my purchase from,
so if I pay Yvonne at a time 25% or more of consideration, well then I’ve stamped UV and value of that. The van transfer that I bought from the Von and that case. So in this particular case, as well as just amplifies the importance documentation, the documentation in relation to, so this was a, a family arrangement in a way. So there was a purchase of a property I think was on the 4th of July,
let’s say. And then there was some document I’m to end that purchase of that agreement. There was saying there was a clause that would say, look, I buy this of my own card and I’m not being held in trust to Todd for anybody else and trying to hurt her three days later, then there’s a twisty put in place which effectively says, look at,
I hold this property just for X, Y, Z. So, you know, there was a debate. Well, actually, Okay. Dave was the beneficial owner of the property at the 4th of July, mr. X, because there was no atrocity at that point in time. So as a result of the sub sale arrangement, so this property was subsequently sold,
I think seven or eight years later to a target prior to our sub sale was the section 46 was claim thriving revenue were saying the same party mr. X, that owned that acquired it from initially wasn’t the same party of the soul because he then created a trust document 23 days later to give to somebody else at the warning. And the trust doc would only says,
you know, Helen trust from this day, you know, far, it doesn’t say wall has always had interest since acquisitions had warning with very poor in the trust document, which gave revenue as some leeway in relation to a number of years later than a new nominee was created. So, you know, mr X, along with this<inaudible> company that created that,
held it for why still, as I said, there was no mention to force contracts and the foresters labor to holding intros to tall. Um, maybe he then had his time, Judy was pay up in the foster transfer. It’s not the same parcel to the second contract, which was seven or eight years later. Um, so even they, even if they said,
even if the choice had to been worded correctly and it was in place at that point, the fact that they transferred to a new nominee meant it came out of the sub sale arrangement altogether. So the commission of finding in favor of revenue and it’s dumped Judy Ross pay a bill on the initial acquisition, it has gone to the high court again. Can I just clarify that’s K 67.
I’m just there and not 68. Yep. Just scroll down because looking at, Uh, the next case then is, um, just, uh, for our payment arrangement, production charge began. It’s just to go to one, I suppose, in relation to just the taxpayer was saying, okay, I accept that I have a liability here, but I can’t pay it.
I need a little bit more on peers. Christian said, I can’t do anything about that. That’s not within the remit of my leg, of, of my work here in those cases. So, eh, I can only apply in relation to it so effectively. There was not, there was an argument as to what is, what is the base cost provided regards,
farty enhancement expenditure there. Um, but the revenue or the PS commission took the evidence, gave an Arlene by the person unaccepted at the word. There was also the Butte as to what the base of what the sales price spots. Cause it was a long time ago. Uh, the revenue Portree hundred thousand, she said, uh, the taxpayer said two 75 on the PS commission based on the evidence that fed that was true for.
And he felt, let’s say two 75 K was the affair proceeds figure to put in relation to it. Also the base cost initially was wasn’t, wasn’t sure it was so many years ago and there was personal issues. So to Toca suppose the decision that look back at the time was an issue parts that she needed to have at least 20% equity in the property sort of said,
we’d assume that you had 20%. And they gave her an additional 12 and a half thousand base costs in that particular case. Um, and there was also an argument as to why, you know, PBR was involved here, um, on the taxpayer was Sam wood. We were there, we lived in the property more than six years at book, the revenue came out and said,
well, look, we have evidence to say for the other six years, somebody else was there. Uh, so you won’t get it for the full 12 years. And I’m the police commission found in favor of revenue there. I said, based on the records day provided, you know, you’re only getting six years in the PPR calculation, six case 66 just throws in partners here,
revenues guidance over the phone is not good advice. Uh, you know, don’t hold a design here. So this person was, and I think he’s an accountant by trade. He was POA issues. He or she is PFP Hawaii worker. Um, so you know, he was wanting the, he, or she was wanting to make a pension contribution,
uh, in that year and put section eight, seven, eight, seven says that in order to get a deduction for the pension contribution, it has to be paid before the return filing date, which, you know, like tronics, whatever middle of November, this wasn’t paid out until December on the phone, she had rang up and said, look,
I want to do it. And she’d already had issues in relation to getting logged on. And the person phone says, Oh, your POS you’ve got four years to do. Or so that gave her the intention of a local, a little bit of time here. I don’t have to worry about the return deadline, but actually when it came to, when she did a return,
it didn’t allow the deduction for the patient and that year to next year, obviously because it wasn’t paid by our sorry, because it wasn’t, even though it was paid, it wasn’t filed by the requirement that deadline, the key thing is section seven 87 requires it to be filed, but returned deadlines. So, um, so they had transcripts of the phone conversation within there as well.
Just this run here. I’m not going to go into the huge amount of detail, the provision of emergency accommodation. So it’s a good warning that if you’re looking at well, is this a trade or is a case for you? This one was unusual in that, in this case, they were actually arguing the revenue rag. And he says case while you supposed case are starting with case walnuts,
as opposed to case five, usually revenue arguing and the other way where they want it to be at case volume in our case won. But the reason for that is that this taxpayer had section 23 relief. So he wanted it to be rightly income so he could get to deduction as a result of so, so revenue recalling the option, they were saying,
this is a case one, a transaction. So you don’t get to six 23 as a result of it, I suppose. And I know Chad, this case brought all the cases and found has been in the UK together. And that’s why it’s a good case to look at. If you’re looking at transactions, is this a trader as a case five,
um, here was founded. This was a case won a trade for really, because it related to merging compensation, there was an agreement with the Dublin city council in relation to providing that accommodation, but the person involved had access to property. He had an office in there as prior to the conditions. He also needs to have security on, uh, at various times he,
um, he had to clean them, maintain the prem system selves. You know, so NSA ineffective is doing a lot of work there. Uh, he had a certain opening hours. Um, you know, the another department that I in the of the state would bring them and say what we want people in here. He he’d have to do that.
He’d have open hours in relation to us. I had his office, uh, he was contacted directly in relation to bookings, DCC, and not in religion in relation to it at so effectively. The peace commission says, look, Dublin city council here was near standard 10 on our tenants arrangement. You know, you come in and out and in your heart,
when you wanted to, uh, you know, it actually was like, the DCC had nothing to do with you providing accommodation with these priorities. And there was another target priority state person telling you, well, look, do you have space? Now you take these in. So it wasn’t a standard landlord tenant relationship at the invoices. They are pros.
If we talked about margin, the accommodation never said I can go rent in relation to it. And for that reason, the Peter’s commission found in favor of revenue. And so this is a, a trade. So it was a use for a refresher on Easton case law, usually with a trade or versus case for the start and wine and all over auto case has been,
you start off his case file, even then you tried to get approved, showed us case one, which is a high barrier to go. Some UK case law has the last two or three years, which isn’t binding in a way, but I can’t help what was where there was a library business, um, or to make money from that. But because of the fact that there was,
you know, let’s say hardship was unplanned, that was taken off, that didn’t enhance the value of the land itself. It was taken out for parts of the business because it wasn’t good for the horses at that. There had the sport that this was actually a trade because the war doing stuff to not enhance the value of land or taking that off at development land just as suppose,
is always wants case ADA revenue contended here. So this was a sale, a big part in store. So to parts and involved here, you know, dude and arm, the CGT computation, didn’t put it in as a, as a development land development is as defined in section six, four eight for CGT purposes as land, which is sold for a price other than what it would achieve.
Had it been sold for as current use value. So without any future development at all. So if this advantage of section three 64 eight, is that you don’t get any base costs indexation in relation to us at all. So this was arguing, this is what the argument was there for. So again, the importance, if you’re going to go to the penis commission that you have some sort of expert advice here,
just this taxpayer said it wasn’t developed none. This price, it got was price. It was going to get heated, went to the, to the stranger planning before, and he could never get it, but on cross examination, he said they couldn’t, he couldn’t get it because he said the revenue didn’t like the, the planning with how he didn’t like them,
but it didn’t say it was never going to happen at all. In relation to what’s, which didn’t help his case. They looked at the brochures for the services, suggested that I had development potential and subsequently it did get kind of permission for more. We shouldn’t have the argument. Um, there was no evaluation part produced by the taxpayer, which the appeals commissioner said,
well, look, if you’re going to come in here, I can only go on, on watch. Give me, you have been saying, and you can pin hole. Is that the revenues expert, would you, haven’t given your own report to say, what is the value that didn’t have those arguments in relation like for the police commissioner, he should have his own expert telling exactly what evaluation he’d bring in an expert,
but the expert only poked holes in the evaluation that was provided by revenues experts. And so it was headed in the, in the end, based on that detailed evaluation that was provided by the revenues expert, that was development land, as, as we said, so it was no indexation. There was big money, it’s 5.2 million or something like that.
Um, there was grounds for a four year. They would have had no merit. There were also saying, well, look, you brought to us after four years, Bush, you know, we know what revenue, they can go back four years if the Schroeder R R S an incomplete return. So it was, it was shown in this case that the accountant had that a daunted CGT return and putting the incorrect based cost to hink and increased land to the reserves in it.
So they could go back four years if they want to go back four years. And he was arguing with that was the accountant. Didn’t that, wasn’t me. In fact, an agent on there for you, it’s not relevant. It’s deemed to be you. And I’m conscious we’re up in time here now. So they just want, here’s just a few hours.
It’s a vast, vast refund situation prior to taxpayer had certain tax activities, which before this, the top were exempt, or we don’t, we can’t charge breath. They looked at us, went in and got another voice. So you can get fat back. You go back four years. So they went back four years, but revenue said what they taught for four years.
They put revenue said, actually, you can’t go back a certain amount because the four year talk starts when you, your two, two month period is up. So in this particular case, they were trying to go back to January, past child. And your September nine revenue says, you’re not getting that because you didn’t, uh, you didn’t submit a VAT return on anyway,
in order to submit a VAT return, you have to portion it. So initially didn’t do any of that return in our, just say that it was to be done or could have been done. You have to apportion the bash. So in this case, this was a nice, uh, uh, business that was providing, um, services. Let’s say somewhere exempt from VAT orders were vulnerable services.
So there an apportionment required in order to be trying to get money back, you far SWAT have to submit your portion tax period, but you didn’t. They did submit it in January, September, Illinois. And Dave was saying, well, look, we did our final apportionment in December, 2009, and that should work red PS commission said, no, that doesn’t work.
It’s such a, it’s, let’s say it’s the January, February return that, that you should, you do your portion. You can do an adjustment. And at the end of the year, which you have to have done some sort of portion of, for that reason, you won’t get your repayment back at the four years at all, as a result at just probably is money to an author here,
just always in part. And so they were claiming look that this isn’t, um, it’s, it’s non taxable, uh, in relation to us because obviously did the artist exemption 50,000 sort of me through tax nest, but what, what the revenue or the appeals commission found was it takes tax money because any parent hunters, an access your salary, uh,
whether it’s, uh, you know, other than personal equation, whereas even her it’s not expected from her. It’s not contractually of, I used to get that money are even more as exceptional. It’s still<inaudible> to employ them. And so on this particular case, the prize money wise assessment, uh, to an income tax, just again for your rules,
but not how the case do continue to go true in relation to these people, looking for refunds repayments back, um, after four years, four years past the fact of the matter is no matter how long unfair is our water was made, or who made their dependence commissioner assistant, he stated that eight, six, five, four to boarding Charlotte. There’s no discretion.
So why it’s a PD that, you know, we can’t go back. You know, I wasn’t fair somebody else making our icon legislate for that. I can only say a six doesn’t allow me so four years and then we’d go back any farther. So that’s consistent to being uptight the whole time. Okay. Um, if you are a set off a dark deduct against nursing home fees,
if you have this, uh, I suppose it’s just a case where the person was obviously over 65, he was, he had a dark, um, ha ha he had dark hair payable and significant at the revenue or saying, well, the, for nursing home phase, first of all, you have to set it against your, your, uh,
your income through your, any other employment drug on any other type of income. And only after that, where you use that against the far 2% dark, let’s say, I think we started 3% at the time. So you should, that’s not what the legislation said. This is the fact that the I can set the nursing home fees off against the interesting conforms to get my reclaim a dart.
And then after that, I can, can go on a section on the lower thresholds of the 23% income for the other income in relation to the is commissioner found in favor of taxpayer does not prevent the application. It doesn’t dish out. So because it doesn’t disallow it, you can force fall set your nursing home page and against, uh, interesting, considering getting dark refund because he’s over 65 years of age.
So if you have any clients in that area, the other case are just ones I looked at in the past, but it’s the dominoes peaches case. It was written into a contract on start with the first, as far as service, uh, just trying to try and T to high court held in favor of the, uh, of the revenue here again.
So he just wants to have in your, all you, if you have anyone in doors, dominoes, provision of services, uh, they were deemed to be employees, even though the PRSI scope section said they were, uh, employers, et cetera. And probably from the point of view, PRSI alright, and this is just another one. If you are,
you know, dating and developing non, uh, an old case, but I just always put it and there, just to remind you, if you’re looking at this, if someone has been dealing in development, they won’t get PPR. They’re not likely to be subject to income tax if they’re, uh, operate and personally, uh, once again, sorry,
there was wind a bit, a little bit over. Um, does anyone have any questions, any other questions in there then? There’s No nothing in the chat box. I don’t know if anyone wants to verbally ask anything. Um, um, yeah, I can’t see anyone coming in there. So I suppose I am, I just want to say time is to John there,
he’s off providing us weight, lots of food for thought, and you have to Coburn a lot of areas there. And as well as, as you said, it’s always worthwhile keeping an eye on and the appeals cases, you know, currency to see what’s the class going through and lots of Coleman in favor of the taxpayer or, you know, or against.
So, and we hope you enjoyed the session and that you’ve got some about value. And then the promise, hopefully we’ll see some of you here for, we have another eight sessions, I think, over the next two weeks. So there’ll be someone back here on Tuesday. Um, and, uh, thank you very much for your support and actually,
yeah, so just that, just making sure there’s nothing coming in there. So thanks there to everybody and enjoy your, the rest of your day and the weekend. Thank you.