Mystery Shopping Thread 24 *PLEASE READ THE OP FIRST**PLEASE NO CLIENT NAMES OR FEES

N.I.M

misssarahleigh wrote: »

I do wish that I has was bigger than this, but I'm not.

MJ, I do believe around a year or so ago a number of us shoppers pointed out that the way your were processing your finance's was incorrect. I even surround the discussion spoke to HMRC (which is now in the OP) specifically about processing re-inbursment only jobs and you were quite happy to ignore this advice (as I believe the method you had set up took more advantage of the system).

I for one am pleased that somebody is taking a look at your accounts. I'm fully for supporting those on low incomes, and those who work hard for little, I do however dislike contributing to a system where people take advanatge to rise above the more honest and harder working. Whether this is true of you I don't know, however, from past posts and information, the impression I got was that you were gaining far more than you should have been, and took advantage of the rules and were not fully honest about your finance's despite being told the correct way to do thing.

You are so going to get flamed for that MSL.

Boredupnorth

I also remember the long winded debate we had around trying to help HappyMJ to understand what he was doing wrong.....Maybe he should have listened to the masses!

Also worth taking note of HappyMJ's incorrect stance on motor insurance. He is wrong people, you need to be covered for business use to be legal....no ifs buts or maybes whatsoever.

N.I.M

Boredupnorth wrote: »

I also remember the long winded debate we had around trying to help HappyMJ to understand what he was doing wrong.....Maybe he should have listened to the masses!

Also worth taking note of HappyMJ's incorrect stance on motor insurance. He is wrong people, you need to be covered for business use to be legal....no ifs buts or maybes whatsoever.

Surely it was debate"S" BUN. I remember a few of these...discussions.

By the by on the business use, there are two types, its not the kind that taxi and delivery drivers need, its the lesser one which is quite often free to add on. If your insurer wants £500 to add it on they are giving you the wrong one.

Boredupnorth

N.I.M wrote: »

Surely it was debate"S" BUN. I remember a few of these...discussions.

By the by on the business use, there are two types, its not the kind that taxi and delivery drivers need, its the lesser one which is quite often free to add on. If your insurer wants £500 to add it on they are giving you the wrong one.

LOL yes it was a few and he was wrong on all of them so god only knows what else will sneak up and bite him in the future.

Good info NIM and correct, most dont charge to add multipul places of work to the policy.

dazza.mk

HappyMJ wrote: »

The HMRC are investigating my claim. The reimbursement can be claimed as an expense and nothing else.....but we've gone through this before and posters on here do not believe this. The HMRC are investigating the claim due to low income declared and a high number of hours declared for working tax credits. I was claiming the hours spent on reimbursement only jobs for tax credits. No hours can be put down for reimbursement only jobs.

<SIGH> looks like he's still wrong, given I read the above as meaning he's now only claiming reimbursement on a reimbursement only job so breaking even rather than creating a tax loss.

Guess its only the Tax Credits dept that are looking at your return HappyMJ?, if they pass it over to purely look at the Tax declared you might have additional issues/

Big_Graeme

misssarahleigh wrote: »

MJ, I do believe around a year or so ago a number of us shoppers pointed out that the way your were processing your finance's was incorrect. I even surround the discussion spoke to HMRC (which is now in the OP) specifically about processing re-inbursment only jobs and you were quite happy to ignore this advice (as I believe the method you had set up took more advantage of the system).

Aha, now I remember this.
Nice to see it come back and bite him on the backside.

Freefall

CupcakeLisa wrote: »

If you are asking about the ones I think you are then no - they moved to another company

Which company?

Freefall

Big_Graeme wrote: »

What is acceptable for tax credits and income tax are not the same at all and you should have made that clear in your post.

I am not sure about this.

Reg 6, The Tax Credits (Definition and Calculation of Income) Regulations 2002 (as amended by Tax Credits (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2006/766)

6. Trading income
The claimant's trading income is—
(a) the amount of his taxable profits for the tax year from—
(i) any trade carried on in the United Kingdom or elsewhere;
(ii) any profession or vocation the income from which does not fall under any other
provisions of these Regulations; or
(b) if the claimant is a partner in the trade, profession or vocation, his taxable profit for the
year arising from his share of the partnership's trading or professional income.
Here “taxable profits”has the same meaning as it has in Part 2 of ITTOIA but disregarding Chapter
16 of that Part (averaging profits of farmers and creative artists).

Boredupnorth

Freefall wrote: »

Which company?

Take the time to scroll back, someone has already answered your question once.

Big_Graeme

Freefall wrote: »

I am not sure about this.

I am, 4 of the wife's family work in the tax credits office in Cumbernauld...

Freefall wrote: »

Reg 6, The Tax Credits (Definition and Calculation of Income) Regulations 2002 (as amended by Tax Credits (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2006/766)

6. Trading income
The claimant's trading income is—
(a) the amount of his taxable profits for the tax year from—
(i) any trade carried on in the United Kingdom or elsewhere;
(ii) any profession or vocation the income from which does not fall under any other
provisions of these Regulations; or
(b) if the claimant is a partner in the trade, profession or vocation, his taxable profit for the
year arising from his share of the partnership's trading or professional income.
Here “taxable profits”has the same meaning as it has in Part 2 of ITTOIA but disregarding Chapter
16 of that Part (averaging profits of farmers and creative artists).

Yup 100% correct.What the OP was doing was miscalculating the profit and loss in the first place and was told that, but also, wrongly making their self employment either making a loss or breaking even by manipulating their tax liability. They were also using reimbursement only jobs in the calculation for hours worked to claim tax credits at the maximum amount.

They have taken the two bits of information and wrongly spliced them together to make a wholly misleading statement for the vast majority here.