Search results

Different tax and employment laws are two major hurdles.

There is a scale of bad names, we all know this inherently, even swear words are graded. And there is a scale of insults. Earlier there is consideration of paedophile, and the judge states there is unlikely a more grave allegation than that. Personally I can’t think of a worse moral allegation...

It's actually fascinating how weak his defence reads, even on Fox's own comments I think he knew he was wrong to do what he did. Say what you will about the English legal system, but the principle of open justice can be fascinating, and the disparity between media discourse and actual...

Perhaps, and that point was considered in the judgement Edit: and all this Question Time stuff happened 10 months before the Twitter exchanges in the defamation case, where Fox had already complained about being an outcast from the acting community, where he had already been warned about how...

Fox called someone racist and defended his right to do so. Fox got called racist and sued for defamation. Fact 1 came back to bite Fox in the bum.

He went too far with his response, and a response to a comment (calling someone racist in a “spirited debate”) which he himself had done. It’s telling his legal defence to the comment was incredibly weak, in fact the judge commented that his defence may have had some merit if he had simply...

The reality is that "gross income" and "net income" and similar aren't formal terms in UK accounting, so the reality is that any definition depends on who is using it. The only scenario I would recognise those words as being somewhat valid is in relation to a sales invoice with VAT. "Net"...

Probably because gross profit has nothing to do with it and it’s just a term people are using when explaining things to you. There’s lots of explanations in here which although get you to the right end result aren’t actually how things work.

It‘s actually not too hard to explain, but I charge for that type of thing. What I said is exactly what I would do to prove non-trading. I’m just not going into detail, but if you want to do your own research find the badges of trade on HMRC manuals and you’re most of the way to getting all the...

By showing the opposite to which you’d show to prove you were trading.

It’s a difficult one, particularly when the actual hurdles aren’t clear. It could be.a generic bad LM, it could be an LM who doesn’t like delivering bad news (e.g. you’re good but there isn’t a commercial need for what you want to do), or it could be internal politics that the LM is trying to...

Slightly more helpfully if your friend is getting stressed or anxious about these meetings then it can be useful to record and then prepare a written summary to share after the event with the recording to help prepare that summary in less stressful circumstances. Or get another job.

I went through this recently, my research at the time was that the person buying out the other person was better off having a solicitor, the person exiting ownership he much less reason to use a solicitor. If buying someone out there are legal steps to take, e.g. getting permission from...

Ignoring the valid points made as a point there’s no law preventing someone making secret recordings for their personal use. So in theory your friend can covertly record meetings.

I haven’t really read this thread but I did see a reference that £10k sales and £9k costs would mean no tax is due. This is incorrect unless a person’s Personal Allowance is still available. The £1k trading allowance is either set off against gross income OR not available if actual costs are...

Then stop calling things tax avoidance if you know the true position. It's misleading and frankly disingenuous of you. Especially as you try to sit on a moral high horse. If you don't like the rate of CGT then say so.

You completely miss my point. What is called "income" is often actually a capital gain. The maximum you can pay on a share gain is 20%, and if that gain is large then simple mathematics will bring the average ETR down because... that's how maths and averages work. This has literally nothing to...

It's quite easy to have a low effective tax rate ("ETR") if "income" isn't income in the correct sense of the word. Poor media reporting, poor understanding and public indignation is easy to get a situation where someone is paying the maximum tax but is still perceived as using "tax avoidance"...

Oh, ok. Then no. They haven't necessarily exceeded the threshold. They may just have untaxed income which is entirely possible if they're on self-assessment (e.g. they have a rental property).

What threshold? The basic rate band is £37,700, the tax code or personal allowance are irrelevant to that. They're doing self-assessment, the likelihood is other sources of income.