Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Tax Systems LSE:TAX London Ordinary Share GB00BDHLGB97 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.0% 112.50 - 0.00 00:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
General Retailers 15.1 -1.9 -0.6 - 98

Tax Systems Share Discussion Threads

Showing 1576 to 1588 of 1725 messages
Chat Pages: 69  68  67  66  65  64  63  62  61  60  59  58  Older
Budget: personal taxes Income tax boost as thresholds raised a year early Terry Murden, Editor | October 29, 2018 Income tax own pic The Chancellor is bringing his plans forward Millions of workers will benefit from a decision to bring forward increase in personal tax allowances by one year. Mr Hammond said he was under pressure to sacrifice a manifesto pledge to raise the basic allowance to £12,500 and the higher rate to £50,000 in order to finance a £20bn boost to the NHS. He had planned to raise the threshold in two stages with the basic allowance currently £11,580 and the higher rate £46,351 in England. Instead he brought the whole change forward by a year to April 2019. The change will mean the basic rate taxpayer will pay £1,205 less tax, amount to a £130 a year tax saving. A higher rate taxpayer will have an average gain of £387. It also puts pressure on the Scottish government which has already decided not to pass on the last increase in the threshold for higher rate payers. “I didn’t come into politics to put taxes up,” said Mr Hammond. “Austerity is coming to an end but discipline will remain.” However, Les Cameron, tax expert at Prudential, said: The bringing forward of the £12,500 personal allowance and £50,000 higher rate threshold will be welcome to those on lower incomes but we mustn’t forget that increasing personal allowances are bad news for higher earners. “Those with incomes over £100,000 will see an effective tax rate of 60% on £25,000 of their incomes.” He said the increase in high-rate tax thresholds means more people qualify for higher rate tax relief on pensions. “The acceleration of the higher rate threshold means more people qualifying for higher rate tax relief on pensions – £100 of pension will be costing them £60 instead of £80.”
dcarn, it appears that you have had no response to your question. May I suggest you put CGT in the epic box and then select the thread started and run by Gengulphus. You will find him very informed on the subject. regards opto
Fracking in the UK: how could a technologically advanced society choose to destroy itself? Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)1Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)1Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Theresa May recently proposed that £1billion of additional resources be directed to local communities and councils towards the development of hydraulic fracturing of shale gas (‘frackingR17;), despite the latter’s contribution to climate change. Daniel Nyberg and Christopher Wright explain how it is that the government supports such a policy. Over the last couple of decades, fracking has emerged as a highly contested issue. In the UK, public awareness of fracking surged following the highly publicised incidents of two earthquakes in Blackpool in the spring of 2011. The fracking industry acknowledged that these were caused by fracking. Since the incidents, fracking has been met with fierce protests, a series of parliamentary inquiries, and strong government support. One of the main sources of opposition to fracking focuses on its contribution to climate change. Two centuries of fossil-fuel-based industrialisation have already increased the average global temperatures by one degree Celsius, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) projects temperatures to exceed three degrees within this century on a business as usual trajectory. Unless we rapidly wean ourselves off fossil fuels, our heated climate will be incompatible with continued human civilisation. To understand how a technologically advanced society could choose to destroy itself by fracking for more fossil fuels, we analysed the four recent parliamentary inquiries and subsequent reports debating fracking in the UK. The government’s doubling-down on fossil fuels can be explained by linking local and specific benefits to nationally or globally recognised interests such as employment, energy security and emission reductions. Scaling was employed in these arguments by connecting fracking to spatial and temporal scales – ordered structures of space to make sense of our surroundings (e.g. local vs. global). For example, Theresa May’s promise of financial support for local communities affected by fracking links national and local scales; the financial interests of the local community is connected to the Government’s expressed interest in fracking. The compensation is placed in the near-term future and specified in pounds sterling. Proponents of fracking in the government and the energy industry further scaled down the debate from the national to the local level by emphasising the advantages of fracking in terms of jobs, cheaper energy prices, and financial incentives. The opponents to fracking in the form of NGOs and local activist groups made similar scalar moves. They linked fracking to harmful environmental effects such as the threat to local water supplies, the use of dangerous chemicals and the industrialisation of communities. Interestingly, both proponents and opponents to fracking frequently linked fracking to climate change. For example, the industry group Energy and Utilities Alliance argued that shale gas from fracking is both cleaner than both coal and oil ‘so its use will enhance the ability of the UK to achieve its climate change obligations’. For proponents, fracking was constructed as a ‘bridge fuel’, with the temporally immediate interest of energy security focused on ‘keeping the lights on’. In contrast, opponents to fracking linked the national expansion of shale gas with the global imperative of rapid decarbonisation. Dr Jon Broderick from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change asked the simple question in the final inquiry, ‘the central issue is: do we want to avoid dangerous climate change and how do we go about doing that?’ Our analysis of the four inquires and subsequent reports shows how supporters of fracking managed to connect fracking with interests at global, national and local levels. Fracking was presented as the solution to both immediate local employment needs as well as distant and global climate change concerns. This scalar politics is possible because of citizens’ multiple interests at different scalar levels and time horizons. These often contradictory interests are something we all experience in regard to climate change – present desires compete against future consequences – and something easily exploitable in ‘selling’; energy policies. Fracking opponents such as environmental NGOs and community groups sought to highlight these conflicts in interests, but their statements appeared comparatively more uncertain and played out over longer-term scales. We argue that in the ongoing struggle between consumption and the destruction of the planet, a false temporal distinction exists that sounds pragmatic, but is ultimately idealistic. Using fossil fuels such as shale gas as a transition energy is based on the idea that climate change is something that will happen in the future, although we currently watch the catastrophic implications arrive around the world with increasing frequency and severity. Climate change politics in the UK and many other western economies is based on individual fractured interests; it is the prisoner’s dilemma, free-rider problem and tragedy of commons all rolled into one. The solution requires constructing collective and common interests beyond cheap energy and consumption. _______________ Note: the above was originally published on LSE Business Review and is authors’ published work in the British Journal of Management. About the Author Daniel Nyberg is Professor of management at the University of Newcastle Business School. He researches how societal phenomena such as climate change are translated into local organisational situations. Christopher Wright is Professor of organisational studies at the University of Sydney Business School and is the co-author, with Daniel Nyberg, of Climate Change, Capitalism and Corporations: Processes of Creative Self-Destruction
the grumpy old men
the grumpy old men
Hi, I've a question with regards to section 104 holding, share purchase and subsequent sale. Scenario being I have section 104 holding in share xyz with no purchases being made since 2015. I then purchase 10000 xyz shares on 15-10-18 for a short term trade and then sell 10000 xyz shares two weeks later on 29-10-18 for a small profit. Question, does the 10000 purchase have to be added to the section 104 holding before calculating any gain / loss or is this treated as a matched trade under the 30 day rule? HMRC HS284 is clear enough for disposal then acquisition within 30 days but it does clarify for acquisition and the disposal within 30 days.
Wetherspoon backing Tax Equality Day by Darren | Tuesday, July 31, 2018 | PUBS AND BARS | J D Wetherspoon says it will be supporting Tax Equality Day on September 13 by discounting food and drink by 7.5% for 24 hours. J D WetherspoonThe day is aimed at highlighting the benefit of a VAT reduction in the hospitality industry and is being backed by UK Hospitality and the British Beer and Pub Association, who are urging other venue owners to join in. Food in pubs, for instance, has VAT at 20%, while much is zero rated in supermarkets. Wetherspoon chairman, Tim Martin, said: “Pubs suffer a huge disadvantage, paying about 16p in business rates per pint versus about 2p for supermarkets. In addition, there is a huge VAT inequality and unfairness. “A reduction in the level of VAT on a long-term basis will create a level playing field and generate growth and jobs in an important and vital industry — especially in beleaguered high streets.”
Tax Systems plc, now 25.6% owned by AIM-listed MXC Capital, is continuing to make good progress as it helps businesses with their Corporation Tax compliance. Organic revenue growth of 9% for the six months to June almost kept pace with 2017’s 10% advance. Overall revenue growth was 14% (to £8m), with Adjusted EBITDA growing at 9%, to £3.7m. EBITDA margins were a healthy 46%. Order intake showed a 22% increase over the level of 2017 H1 with annuity licence orders growing by 11%. Pre-tax losses came in at £0.8m, roughly half the level at the previous interims. Over the past couple of years, Tax Systems management has worked hard to improve the company’s processes; upgrading infrastructure, introducing several support systems and setting clear targets. The company is working towards the development of a single integrated platform to deliver its solutions and the integration of the OSMO capabilities to improve data collection and management has provided a major step forward. Growth by acquisition has played a significant part in the Group’s growth strategy with the purchase of TCSL in 2016 and of Little British Battler OSMO in 2017. Management is also active in seeking new targets to address adjacent markets in tax and regulatory compliance, with a key focus being VAT compliance. HMRC and other tax authorities are consistently setting businesses ever higher requirements for reporting and data management, with major initiatives such as HMRC’s “Making Tax Digital”. As a result, the demand for Tax Systems’ solutions should continue to grow strongly. Tax Systems under CEO Gavin Lyons has momentum and appears to have a clear strategy to grow and drive excellent returns in both existing and new markets. Worth watching.
Appropriate tax systems – taxation in the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ Appropriate tax systems – taxation in the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ With proposals for an Amazon tax on the table, how can the UK tax system catch up with the implication of the Fourth Industrial Revolution? Author Jane Mackay Crowe Date published August 28, 2018 Categories Corporate Tax AddThis Sharing Buttons Share to TwitterShare to LinkedInShare to EmailShare to Print Proposals for tax changes are now routinely given the names of companies that have been global disruptors. This naming practice recognises that the debate around an appropriate tax system revolves around how tax systems can catch up with the implications of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”. Retail The retail sector is one of the sectors most affected to date by technological change. The statistics clearly indicate that the move from “bricks and mortar” to online shopping has been significant and Philip Hammond’s statement about an “Amazon tax” is just one more acknowledgement that the tax system has not kept up with changes to consumer habits. The idea of an “Amazon tax” is around making sure that the tax take reflects the location of the customer in the territory in which large values of sales are generated. Our current tax system has developed over the last few decades and is designed for simpler transactions and a more local world than the one in which we operate today. While the increase in online retail has generally been blamed for the number of recent failures of big name high street retailers, many argue that our tax system has played a critical role in putting “bricks and mortar” retailers at a disadvantage compared with their online rivals. There are a number of taxes that disproportionately affect UK “bricks and mortar” retailers. These include property taxes (business rates in particular but also Stamp Duty Land Tax) and corporation tax on profits. Changes to property taxes are matters for the UK to decide and, after much lobbying by the retail sector, further business rate reductions should go some way to helping UK retailers.
the grumpy old men
Changes to tax rules on overseas assets 20 August 2018 SHARE TWEET SHARE SHARE Changes to tax rules on overseas assetsTaxpayers could face tough penalties if they fail to declare their income on foreign assets before new legislation comes into force. HMRC is urging UK taxpayers to declare any foreign income or profits on offshore assets before 30 September to avoid higher tax penalties. New legislation, called Requirement to Correct, requires UK taxpayers to notify HMRC about any offshore tax liabilities relating to UK income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax. Experts are warning that some UK taxpayers may not realise they have a requirement to declare their overseas financial interests. Under the rules, actions like renting out a property abroad, transferring income and assets from one country to another or even renting out a UK property when living abroad could mean taxpayers face a tax bill in the UK. Mel Stride, financial secretary to the Treasury, said: "This new measure will place higher penalties on those who do not contact HMRC and ensure their offshore tax liabilities are correct. I urge anyone affected to get in touch with HMRC now." From 1 October more than 100 countries, including the UK, will be able to exchange data on financial accounts under the Common Reporting Standard (CRS). CRS data will enhance HMRC's ability to detect offshore non-compliance. The most common reasons for declaring offshore tax are in relation to foreign property, investment income and moving money into the UK from abroad. Over 17,000 people have already contacted HMRC to notify the department about tax due from sources of foreign income. Customers can correct their tax liabilities by using HMRC's digital disclosure service. Once a customer has notified HMRC by 30 September of their intention to make a declaration, they will have 90 days to make the full disclosure and pay any tax owed. Paul Morris, tax partner at Bishop Fleming, said: "If you have overseas income and assets that have not previously been declared to the UK tax office, there is an opportunity to disclose these before 1 October 2018 to avoid much higher penalties than will be the case after that date. "From 1 October 2018 there will be eye-watering penalties of up to 200% (double the current amount) on any tax not declared, plus asset-geared penalties of a further 10%. There will be extra penalties where assets or funds are hidden to avoid detection. Taxpayers can also be 'named and shamed'. But with the right advice, these sanctions can be reduced."
YER abolish stamp duty for all purchases under sterling 2 million for starters
Stamp duty killed the property market over 1 million.
Https://www.which.co.uk/news/2018/08/buy-to-let-landlords-face-30-day-deadline-to-pay-capital-gains-tax/ Why are the changes being made? Currently, there’s a discrepancy between the date when people who file tax returns need to pay their bills for income tax and when they pay capital gains tax. Though the deadline for online tax returns is 31 January after the end of the tax year, self-assessment taxpayers need to make advance payments for income tax and national insurance, known as payments on account. By contrast, CGT won’t be due until the final deadline, potentially meaning capital gains tax can be paid up to a year later than income taxes. Other forms of tax on property, such as stamp duty, are also due within 30 days of the property sale being completed. From the government’s perspective, the change would mean that HMRC will receive CGT receipts earlier. But landlords may feel the pinch in their cash flow. The move follows a number of other tax reforms that have pushed up bills for landlords, including the scaling back of mortgage interest relief, and the introduction of a stamp duty surcharge on buy-to-let and second homes. Get a head start on your 2017-18 tax return with the Which? tax calculator When will the new rules come into effect? The new rules have not yet been confirmed, as the draft legislation is currently passing through Parliament. If there are no changes to the policy, the bill could pass into law this summer. The change was originally due to come into effect in April 2019, but the proposals have been delayed and are likely take effect for property disposals on or after 6 April 2020. At this stage, there are no plans to change the deadline for other forms of CGT – though if the change is successful, it’s possible the deadline for paying CGT on shares, funds or other investments could be brought forward, too. Read more: Https://www.which.co.uk/news/2018/08/buy-to-let-landlords-face-30-day-deadline-to-pay-capital-gains-tax/ - Which?
la forge
Chat Pages: 69  68  67  66  65  64  63  62  61  60  59  58  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
Tax System..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20211203 20:25:14