Freedom Bill (again)

TrickyWicky

AFAIK no business pays VAT itself.. the customers do and the business charges for it in its price and passes it on to HMRC.

/end of further derailment

SodG24

assj wrote: »

anyway who cares just don't park wrong, we all know how we can and cannot park. If you don't like the charges or fees or anything else for that matter, simply don't park. I would rather have these rules and then when I go to work and someone is in my space I can do something about it!.

And what about G24 who ticket even if you have followed the rules ?

That phrase in your post could have very easily come from a PPC ! :cool:

esmerobbo

TrickyWicky wrote: »

AFAIK no business pays VAT itself.. the customers do and the business charges for it in its price and passes it on to HMRC.

Can I stop paying VAT then I am in business and certainly pay VAT! I pass on the difference from what I pay to what I receive!

TrickyWicky

SodG24 wrote: »

And what about G24 who ticket even if you have followed the rules ?

Gotta admit I do think many PPCs look for excuses to see rules being broken even though they're not and frankly it's pretty sickening.

As for assj he's made clear in another thread he's not from a PPC but an LA.. but they do both seem to be on similar wavelengths.

EDIT - I mean the LA's and PPC's being on the same wavelength.

trisontana

TrickyWicky wrote: »

AFAIK no business pays VAT itself.. the customers do and the business charges for it in its price and passes it on to HMRC.

/end of further derailment

This is the court case concerning Vehicle Control Services (VCS):- http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2011/TC00999.html

Just to quote two paragraphs:-

26. On balance we find that it has not been shown that any of the income involved in this appeal has been obtained through actions for trespass brought on behalf of the land owner, but if it has, we find that those damages are payable to the landowner in the first place. Retention of the monies by VCS, who has had to bring that action as agent of the landowner, is for the agent’s services to the landowner, not under the terms of the licence but for the additional service of bringing such actions as agent. The retained monies are remuneration for this service and are subject to VAT.

27. We further find that VCS have not shown that the income which is the subject of this appeal involves damages for breach of contract. We find that the income from payment of the parking charges as set out in the notices, has been paid as a condition of the contract between VCS and the motorist and is therefore in consideration for a supply of services. It is therefore chargeable to VAT at the standard rate.

esmerobbo

"but they do both seem to be on similar wavelengths"

But on a different planet!

TrickyWicky

esmerobbo wrote: »

But on a different planet!

Yup, they're both convinced that they're right and that the motorist is out there to get THEM.. and because of this they must get the motorist.

As I've said elsewhere I got out of it because its a sickening attitude.

stephenliverpool1

SodG24 wrote: »

Given Norman Baker is known as a bit of a numpty around these parts and not unknown to lie ( remember the false Ditchling Beacon photograph or the 20 minute walk from Brighton Station to Wilson Avenue Norm ? ) I won't hold my breath for a sensible or accurate response !

A dishonest MP surely not ?? All MPs are always truthful, would never mislead the public (e.g. expenses, etc.) and act with integrity just llke the PPCs !!

In seriousness, as soon I get a response from Storming Norman, I will advise accordingly.

stephenliverpool1

TrickyWicky wrote: »

As I've said elsewhere I got out of it because its a sickening attitude.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:Yeah right ? Not an MP by any chance ?;):rotfl:

[Deleted User]

TrickyWicky thank you for your kind words, that is the last time I will defend your poor spelling!.

I have been talking about what I heard at the last BPA meeting!

Nothing more, nothing less.

What is your problem!.