Category: Insights

Whilst on the subject of the reduction in cash transactions, we take the opportunity remind you of the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme (GASDC). Under this scheme a charity or community amateur sports club (CASC) can claim top-up payments on small donations up to £20.

From 6 April 2017 charities have also been able to claim tax back on donations made using contactless technology, such as a contactless credit or debit card.

Before 6 April 2017, charities could only claim top-up payments on small cash donations. Cash donations can be in coins or notes that have been collected and banked in the UK. The charity does not need to know the identity of the donors or collect Gift Aid declarations.

GASDS claims are worked out in the same way as Gift Aid. If the basic rate of Income Tax is 20%, the charity can claim a GASDS top-up payment of £2,000 on up to £8,000 worth of small donations. This is limited to 10 times the amount that the charity receives in Gift Aid donations that tax year.

One of the announcements in the Spring Statement was the possible demise of the 1p and 2p coins and the £50 note, but for different reasons. It seems that more and more of us are paying for small transactions such as our morning coffee by using contactless payments.

Those who do pay in cash and where the cost is say £2.99 we put the penny change in the charity pot and many are thrown away! The £50 note has been linked to money laundering and other illegal cash-based payments.

The increase in contactless transactions and consequent reduction in the number of small coins in circulation will have a significant impact on the charity sector as many are reliant on peoples’ small change being donated outside supermarkets and stations.

The consultation on the future of cash in the economy also considers the role of cash in tax evasion and illegal activities. The vast majority of traders and businesses accepting payments in cash will do so honestly. However, in some cases, the anonymous and untraceable nature of cash transactions is perceived to facilitate tax evasion, hidden economy activity, or money laundering. This harms the honest majority of businesses who find it harder to compete, and means less money goes towards our vital public services.

HMRC are aware that payments in cash can be a problem for tax compliance. In some cases, this is because taxpayers find it difficult to keep accurate records of all their transactions. HMRC have identified that cash is used by a small minority of people to hide or disguise their taxable income by not reporting, or under-reporting, what they owe.

The consultation paper suggests that the increasing use of digital payments and reduction in the use of cash could have a positive impact on increasing tax compliance and decreasing money laundering. However, the increase in digital payments may only have a limited impact, if the dishonest minority continue to use cash to hide or suppress their income. Could the next step be to make it mandatory to pay your window cleaner or gardener electronically? Not yet…

As announced last year, the Chancellor’s Budget will in future take place in the Autumn each year as opposed to the Spring. There was however a Statement by the Chancellor on 13 March, but he made little mention of tax changes, instead choosing to focus on the state of the economy and stating that there is “light at the end of the tunnel”. This contrasts with other recent Chancellors such as Gordon Brown and George Osborne who used both the Spring Budget and Autumn Statement to make announcements of tax changes.

New Consultations

The Chancellor did however announce a number of tax consultations into possible future changes. One of the consultations concerns possible changes to the VAT registration threshold as it is concerned that some businesses deliberately operate below the VAT threshold (currently £85,000) as that adds 20% to the price of the goods and services. One suggestion is that businesses could be allowed to exceed the threshold by up to 50% for one year without the need to register for VAT. In another consultation HMRC is seeking views on how they can engage with online platforms, such as eBay and Uber, to promote tax compliance among its users.

We have featured the tax efficiency of pension fund investment in a number of recent newsletters. As well as the increased flexibility in terms of drawdown arrangements that were introduced in April 2015 there were some important changes to what happens to the undrawn funds on death. These changes mean that your pension fund can be passed to survivors tax efficiently.

Where the pension scheme member dies under age 75 certain lump sum death benefits are now tax-free. In particular a drawdown or flexi-drawdown pension fund lump sum death benefit or an uncrystallised funds lump sum death benefit.

Where the member at the time of their death was age 75 or older the special lump sum death benefit charge on the fund will be 45%. However, if a nominated beneficiary wants to draw down income each year rather than take the lump sum the amounts drawn would be taxed at their marginal income tax rate. It has recently been reported that there are currently £2 billion of pension assets in drawdown where the beneficiary is aged under 55 suggesting that a significant number of individuals have taken advantage of the new rules.

Note that cash and quoted shares, including those held within an ISA, are subject to inheritance tax on death whereas pension fund assets are generally free from inheritance tax. It may therefore be more tax efficient to spend or give away cash and shares rather than draw on the pension fund.

Please contact us if you would like to discuss estate and inheritance tax planning in more detail.

The IR35 personal service company legislation has been on the statute book since 2000 and has never really worked as intended.

The main reason for this is that the interpretation of the legislation is based on the same employment status tests referred to above, which lack clarity and are open to interpretation by the courts.

However, HMRC have recently won a key case on IR35 at the First Tier Tribunal concerning the BBC presenter Christa Ackroyd.

Ms Ackroyd had been supplying her services to BBC through her personal service company Christa Ackroyd Media Services Ltd since 2006/07. The Tribunal agreed with HMRC that the hypothetical contract between the BBC and Ms Ackroyd would have been a contract of service. The existence of a seven-year contract meant that Ms Ackroyd’s work at the BBC was pursuant to a highly stable, regular and continuous arrangement. It involved a high degree of continuity rather than a succession of short term engagements. That is a pointer towards an employment contract.

Another key factor considered by the court was that her fellow presenter on “Look North” was on the BBC payroll. Ms Ackroyd’s company was appealing against demands for some £419,151 from HMRC relating to income tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs) for the tax years 2006/07 to 2012/13. It will be interesting to see if there is an appeal to a higher court and whether this decision will be used by HMRC against other BBC presenters and other personal service companies.

Please contact us if you wish to discuss whether or not the employment status or IR35 rules impact on your working arrangements.

Last year we reported that the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee published a report calling on the Government to close the loopholes that allow “bogus” self-employment practices, which burden the welfare state but reduce the tax contributions needed to sustain it.

Most of the people working for organisations such as such as Uber, Amazon, Hermes and Deliveroo are not on the payroll, have limited workers’ rights and are paid for each delivery or “gig”. The Committee recommended a default assumption of “worker” status, rather than “self-employed”. The economist Mathew Taylor was also asked to produce a report on the status of such workers and suggested that a new category of “dependent contractor” should be established.

HMRC and the Treasury have now published a consultation into a thorough review of employment status.

Consultation on employment status

HMRC published a consultation on employment status on 7 February as a follow up to the Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices.

Individuals and their employers have to know which employment status applies to ensure the right protections are applied – from the

National Minimum Wage and holiday pay, to unfair dismissal protection and statutory redundancy pay.

Employment status also affects the taxes that an individual and their employer pay. It is therefore essential in maintaining a clear and effective tax base, with individuals and employers knowing what rates of tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs) are applicable to everyone in their organisation.

The existing legislation defining an employee for both tax and employment rights ultimately relies on whether a contract of service exists. No further definition or clarity is provided in the legislation.

As a result, over time the courts have interpreted the legislation and developed tests to

determine an individual’s employment status. These tests are contained in a number of

key precedent cases, including a mixture of employment rights and tax judgments.

A possible solution suggested is to legislate a more detailed definition of employment incorporating the irreducible minimum core tests established by case law:

• Mutuality of obligation
• Control over the individual
• Personal service

If your pension savings exceed the annual pension input limit (generally £40,000) then there is an annual allowance charge. The effect of the annual allowance charge is to reduce tax relief on any pension saving over the annual allowance.

The annual allowance charge is not at a fixed rate but will depend on how much taxable income an individual has and the amount of their pension saving in excess of the annual allowance. Hence for a higher rate taxpayer the charge would be 40% on the excess over the annual pension allowance. Note that annual pension input includes any contributions made by the employer and it may be those contributions that trigger the charge.

You can ask your pension provider to pay HMRC out of your pension pot if you’ve gone over your annual allowance and the tax is more than £2,000. You must tell your pension provider before 31 July if you want them to pay the tax charge for the previous tax year.

Many of you will have just paid your 2016/17 tax bill before the 31 January 2018 deadline, and some of you will also have paid 50% of next year’s tax on account. Here are a couple of tax planning ideas that can help you obtain a tax refund.

Invest in EIS or Seed EIS qualifying companies

Before 6 April 2018, individuals may invest in companies that qualify under the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) and treat that investment as having been made in 2016/17. The tax relief is 30% of the amount invested. So a £20,000 investment can reduce the 2016/17 tax liability by £6,000. Investing in a Seed EIS qualifying company is even better as there is a 50% tax relief. Such companies tend to be riskier than EIS qualifying companies. You should therefore obtain specialist advice from an IFA if you are considering such investments.

Investing in an EIS qualifying company can also enable you to defer capital gains tax. In order to do so you must reinvest the amount of the gain within the 3 years following the date of the disposal giving rise to the gain. (The investment could also be within 12 months prior to the disposal).

Increase your Pension Savings before 6 April 2018 to reduce payments on account

Unfortunately investing more in your pension now will not reduce your 2016/17 tax liability, however if you invest before 6 April 2018 that payment can be taken into consideration in computing your 2017/18 liability and hence you might be able to claim to reduce your payments on account, if you make them. The maximum pension contribution is generally £40,000 each tax year, although this depends on your earnings. It is also possible to add to this any unused relief brought forward from the previous three tax years.