Officials from India’s army have posted images online of what they purport to be the footprints of the famous, mythical Yeti.

Sometimes referred to as the abominable snowman, the cryptid creature is part of Nepalese folklore and is said to live high in the snow-covered Himalayas.

Posting the images to Twitter, the Indian army said the footprints, which measured around 32×15 inches, were discovered by members of the army’s mountaineering expedition team close to a camp near Mount Makalu.

Discovered on 9 April, officials are now awaiting expert confirmation that they have found the legendary creature, but Twitter users haven’t been quite so kind, with many mocking the post.

Stories of the Yeti were first shared with European climbers in the 1920s by their Nepalese guides and Sherpas. At the time, many believed that the creature could be real, so much so that Sir Edmund Hillary went looking for the creature during his expeditions in the Himalayas.

Since then there have been numerous sightings of the beast and it‘s footprints, including in 2008 when Japanese climbers claimed to have seen footprints in Western Nepal.

Despite all this, the scientific community remain unconvinced and no concrete evidence of the Yeti’s existence has been found to date.

Please note that due to the impending Easter break and holiday commitments, our offices will be closed on the following days over the next couple of weeks:

• Friday 19th April (Good Friday)
• Monday 22nd April (Easter Monday)
• Friday 26th April

We will be open for business as usual on all other dates. On the days that the office is closed.

We thank you in advance for your understanding.

The new tax year began on 6 April and brief details of the changes for 2019/20 are listed below:

Income Tax Allowance

The amount everyone can earn before paying income tax has increased from £11,850 to £12,500, which means that all taxpayers will receive a small boost. This month also sees the higher-rate tax band increase from £46,350 to £50,000.

t is estimated that these changes will help more than 32 million people to reduce their tax bill.

Unfortunately, those on the higher-rate band will also see an increase in their National Insurance contributions. As the upper earnings limit is linked to the higher-rate tax band, employees will now pay the existing 12 per cent rate on their earnings between £46,350 to £50,000 rather than the two per cent previously charged.

Tax-free allowances

There are several tax-free allowances that have increased from 6 April. One of the most significant for those looking to dispose of assets is the increase in the amount of capital gains you can make in a year before paying tax, which has risen from £11,700 to £12,000.

The lifetime tax-free allowance for pension contributions has also gone up from £1,030,000 to £1,055,000, while smaller incentives, such as an increase in the Junior ISA allowance to £4,368 per annum offers taxpayers more ways of distributing their wealth in a tax efficient manner in order to reduce the amount they pay on their income.

Passing on wealth

Those nearing the end of their careers may also be concerned about the prospect of inheritance tax on their beneficiaries.

Whilst the standard tax-free nil-rate band remains £325,000 for individuals and £650,000 for married or civil partnered couples, the new residence nil-rate band allows property to be passed on in a more tax efficient manner.

This new rate increased from to £125,000 last year and has risen again to £150,000 this year.

However, in order to benefit from this rate, the property must be passed to a direct descendant and those with an estate worth more than £2 million will see the allowance taper away by £1 for every £2 over the threshold.

State pension rises to £168.60 a week

The state pension continues to benefit from the triple-lock, which means that many pensioners are now enjoying a 2.6 per cent increase in their state pension.

For those on the basic-state pension, they will now receive up to £129.20 per week, while the flat-rate state pension for those retiring from April 2016 onwards has risen to £168.60.

If you are in receipt of the state pension but are still working as a freelancer or contractor, it is important that you take into consideration this additional income when reporting your affairs.

Mortgage interest relief cut for landlords

Following the whittling away of mortgage interest over the last few years buy-to-let investors now only enjoy 25 per cent relief on their mortgage interest. For some, this could push them into the higher-rate tax bracket. From next year, all property investors will only enjoy a basic rate tax relief reduction, at 20 per cent.

Student loan threshold increases

If you started university in 2012 or after, the earnings threshold at which you start paying back the loan has increased from £25,000 to £25,725.

Those who studied before 2012 will also see their threshold rise from £18,330 to £18,935, when they repay the nine per cent of their earnings required, which could help them to save up to £54.

It is important that if you report your own earnings under self-assessment that you consider the repayment of your student loan, where one exists, and factor this into your tax return.

MPs have demanded that HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) suspend loan charges by six months to allow an independent inquiry to investigate the tax campaign.

Both sides of the house were due to support a motion tabled by Conservative backbencher Ross Thomson this month, which was put on hold after a water pipe burst in the House of Commons.

The delay means that the controversial charge came into effect on 5 April but it is understood that the All-Party Parliamentary Loan Charge Group (Loan Charge APPG) has petitioned financial secretary to the Treasury Mel Stride to seek an urgent suspension of the new law.

Before the debate was postponed by the leak MPs, including the likes of former Brexit Secretary David Davis, stood up to critique the new tax charge, saying that it was “destroying families, homes, mental health and even lives.”

The debate in the Commons came after the Loan Charge APPG released a report on the consequences of the loan charges and HMRC’s poor conduct in the matter.

More than 900 people affected by the loan charge provided testimony to the parliamentary group, who concluded that:

• There is a clear risk to the mental welfare of people facing the loan charge, including known suicide risks and a number of suicides linked to the charge.
• There will be many bankruptcies as a result of the loan charge.
• The original impact assessment published by the Treasury was flawed and inadequate, to the point of being negligent.
• The ‘disguised remuneration’ arrangements were not entered as “aggressive tax avoidance” and were often a condition of employment, especially in the public sector.
• The Loan Charge is retrospective, overrides taxpayer protections and undermines the rule of law.
• The real reason for the introduction of the loan charge was to bypass the normal legal processes and to allow HMRC to collect tax where they were ‘out of time’ under existing legislation.
• There has been a cynical campaign of misinformation waged by HMRC and the Treasury.

If the tabled motion is passed then it could lead to an immediate six-month suspension of the charge and an independent review led by an experienced tax judge.

Other recommendations include reviewing the use of behavioural psychology and behavioural insights when considering HMRC’s behaviour, “the knowing use of which should be suspended in the light of the suicide risk and the known suicides of individuals facing the loan charge”.

“HMRC’s conduct with regard to the loan charge indicates that it is an organisation out of control, urgently needing better and proper scrutiny and genuine accountability,” the report added.

Reacting to the debate and report, a Treasury spokesperson was reported to have said : “As announced at Budget 2016 and in accordance with the legislation, the loan charge takes effect from April 5. Anyone who contacts HMRC by midnight April 5 with the genuine intention to settle their tax affairs and provides the required information will almost certainly end up paying less.

“We remain committed to ensuring that people impacted by the loan charge receive the support they need, and that individual cases are treated sympathetically in the light of individual circumstances.”

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) is “urging” taxpayers who have yet to submit their Self-Assessment for 2017/18 to do so “immediately”.

In it’s new report, the ICAEW said business owners and self-employed traders only have until the end of April to complete their tax return or risk “additional daily fines”.

The penalties for not completing the Self-Assessment return by 31 January – the official final online deadline – is an automatic £100 fine.

However, if the return is submitted any later than 30 April 2019, an additional penalty of £10 per day, up to a maximum of £900, will be due.

If it is still not complete six months after the initial deadline, a further penalty of five per cent of the tax due or £300, whichever is greater, will be due, followed by a second five per cent penalty if no submission is made after 12 months.

The report comes after the ICAEW revealed that almost 700,000 taxpayers missed the online Self-Assessment deadline in January.

Man from the year 2045 reveals who will be president after passing lie detector test

A time traveller, claiming to be from the year 2045, has passed a lie detector test, which some say proves that he is indeed from the future.

The unnamed man agreed to take part in a filmed lie detector test with Apex TV in America to prove that his story was the truth and surprised audiences when the machine indicated that he was not lying.

Relaying messages from the apparent future, the man confirms several key events in the years to come and revealed that the US president in 2045 is considered the “greatest president” the country has ever had.

Claiming to have been born at the end of 2019, the man said that in the year that he travelled from humanity had made it’s first contact with aliens and that he had a microchip implanted in his hand called The One.

Not stopping there, Apex TV then asked whether dinosaurs had been cloned, to which he said that there were dinosaur zoos, adding: “If they existed, you can see them.”

But what about the future great Commander in Chief. The anonymous time traveller said that Martin Luther King Jr’s granddaughter, Yolanda Renee King, was in power.

Aged just 10, the descendant of the great civil rights leader has already taken to the public stage last year, addressing crowds of thousands in Washington on the issue of gun control.

Throughout his interview, the unidentified man successfully answered all questions in an apparently truthful fashion.

TV presenter, Lorraine Kelly has won an appeal against HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) at a First Tier Tribunal (FTT) over a £1.2 million demand for unpaid income tax (£899,912) and National Insurance Contributions (NICs) (£312,615).

The appeal arose from a challenge to her employment status under IR35.  HMRC were claiming that Lorraine Kelly should have been working inside IR35 at ITV Breakfast Ltd during the relevant period. This would have meant she was effectively an employee of ITV and income tax and NICs would have to be accounted for.

HMRC accepted that Kelly’s other assignments charged through her limited company were outside of IR35.

The claim, however, was appealed, on the basis that the nature and range of Kelly’s work meant all of her assignments should be treated as outside of IR35.

Within the case, Kelly argued that she did not receive sick pay or a pension, she chose her own hours and ultimately there was no guarantee her contracts would be renewed.

Additionally, although the ITV programmes were aired throughout the year, Kelly was only required to provide her services for 42 weeks per year and she was instrumental in helping find substitute presenters for the time she was absent.  ITV could however determine whether or not to accept the substitute.

Furthermore, ITV was under no obligation to pay Kelly if she was unable to present the show and any additional appearances on ITV would have separately negotiated contracts.

HMRC argued that ITV retained control over Kelly with regard to OFCOM obligations and that it was the editor of the programmes who exercised that control. However, the tribunal found that OFCOMs role as regulator was irrelevant and there was minimal control or supervision of Kelly by the editors.

After examining all of the evidence, the tribunal decided that the relationship between Kelly and ITV was a contract for services and not that of employer and employee, as such the case was found in her favour.

The second element contested at the FTT was whether or not Kelly was a ‘theatrical artist’; as if she were treated as an entertainer her limited company would be able to deduct her agent’s fees from it’s income.

HMRC disputed this description of her role, claiming she was a current affairs journalist.

Ms Kelly stated that she viewed the term “theatrical artist” widely and that she acted every day as a version of herself and was not reliant on ITV for her work.

However, as the judge found Kelly’s ITV contract was outside of IR35, the deduction of agent’s fees didn’t have to be resolved.

It is important to note that Lorraine Kelly’s case is the fourth of five IR35 cases to be lost by HMRC since 2018.

A spokesperson for HMRC said: “We are disappointed that the FTT has decided that the intermediary rules (also known as IR35) did not apply in this case. Moving forward, we will carefully consider the outcome of the tribunal before deciding whether to appeal.”

Despite fears of swingeing changes to taxation for independent contractors, in particular, further changes to the IR35 rules, the Chancellor delivered a Spring Statement that offered only minor amendments.

The lack of change will be welcomed by some seeking greater certainty in uncertain times, but many contractors will be disappointed that Philip Hammond didn’t act to slow down or reverse the damage done by the upcoming off-payroll rules or concerns about loan charges.

A number of documents and consultations published post-Statement on the Treasury website confirmed that IR35 would go ahead, but also introduced new proposals that could have a wider impact on contractors, in particular where HMRC suspects ‘disguised remuneration’.

“As announced in December 2010, the government will introduce legislation to target arrangements intended to disguise remuneration”, HM Treasury said.

“This includes legislation to ensure income tax applies to…. third-party arrangements and a new charge on disguised remuneration loan balances outstanding at 5 April 2019.”

Separate documents also confirmed that Making Tax Digital would go ahead as planned on 1 April 2019.

Spring Statement documents state: “Mandatory digital record keeping for VAT for businesses over the VAT threshold (with turnover over £85,000) comes into force from 1 April.

“This is an important first step in this modernisation of the tax system to which the government remains committed.”

However, it wasn’t all talk of tax raids on contractors in the Spring Statement as the Chancellor also announced that the Government would do more to tackle “the scourge of late payments”.

According to new consultation papers, the Government will introduce new rules that will require larger businesses to log payment performance in their annual accounts.

This has been introduced following calls from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) to tackle the issue. Celebrating their success, the FSB said: “Poor payment practices by big businesses towards their smaller suppliers are rife and pernicious, leading to the closure of 50,000 small firms a year,” the FSB said.

“The end of late payments could finally be in sight. It can’t come soon enough, to bolster small businesses at a time when they are in great need of support and a lift in confidence.”

For many years, various “loan schemes” have been marketed to contractors. With a loan scheme, a very small salary is paid to the contractor and the rest of the money earned by the contractor is loaned. The taxes paid are very low, the fees to the loan scheme promotor substantial. It is now clear that HMRC will chase the tax liability forever. This is a horror story with contractors entering into schemes which are well marketed as tax approved schemes but in reality, has resulted in contractors being chased by HMRC for massive amounts of tax liability.

These schemes are a tax bomb waiting to go off in future years and some contractors have lost their homes raising the funds to clear their tax liability. Many more contractors went into such schemes after the off-payroll public sector rules came in April 2017. They look like employment schemes so fooled the public sector organisation.

Cogent does not deal with the settlement with HMRC as this is a highly specialised area, however, we are happy to speak to you and explain the dangers of using such schemes in the future.

THE LOAN CHARGE

HMRC now have a new “Disguised remuneration loan scheme” legislation to use.

The Loan charge will apply to all outstanding disguised remuneration, self-employed and contractor loans were taken out since 1999, unless loans are repaid or a settlement is in progress with HMRC before 5 April 2019 and completed by 31 August 2019.

In the documents, HMRC reveal that more than 20 individuals have been convicted for offences relating to the promotion and marketing of tax avoidance schemes since 2016, who have together received over 100 years of custodial sentences.

HMRC have published several spotlights about disguised remuneration schemes in recent years with this latest document advising that arrangements currently being marketed that claim to avoid the loan charge do not, in HMRC’s strong view, work.

HMRC are warning taxpayers to beware of arrangements or schemes which claim to avoid the loan charge legislation and involve one or more of the following features:

• They are marketed from an offshore location such as Cyprus, Malta or Isle of Man
• They claim that:
  • by entering the scheme, your disguised remuneration loans are paid off
  • the scheme is not disclosable under DOTAS (Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes), and benefit from a QC’s opinion
• They have professional marketing material, including a website
• They suggest that disguised remuneration loans can be ‘paid off’ or ‘repaid’ without any real economic consequence, meaning that the scheme user will not suffer any material financial cost

HMRC say “if it looks too good to be true, it usually is” and those who sign up to such schemes are likely to:

• Pay administration and promoters’ fees that cannot be recovered
• Remain liable for the loan charge

HMRC strongly advises anyone using one of these schemes to withdraw from it and settle their tax affairs.

Here is a case study provided by HMRC:

Gurpreet: 54-year-old IT Consultant from Bristol

• Gurpreet entered into an employment income tax avoidance scheme which he used in 2009-10 and 2010-11. The scheme was disclosed by the promoter under DOTAS.
• As part of the scheme, Gurpreet became an employee of a partnership resident in the Isle of Man. The scheme advertised that users could take home 90% of their pay.
• Gurpreet signed a loan agreement when he entered into the scheme. This meant that he received a monthly payslip showing a lower amount of employment income subject to tax and NICs as well as a loan amount from which no tax or duties were deducted.
• HMRC received Gurpreet’s 2009-10 tax returns on 28/09/2010. Gurpreet declared £14,200 employment income which was the salary received. He did not declare the additional loan payments which totalled £154,000 for 2009-10.
• We received Gurpreet’s 2010-11 return on 28/01/2012. Declared employment income for this year was £11,500 which was the salary received. Gurpreet did not declare additional loan payments totalling £191,900 for 2010-11.
• For both years, Gurpreet did disclose the DOTAS reference number for the scheme on his return.
• We opened an enquiry into the 2010-11 return on 05/12/2012. We did not open an enquiry for 2009-10 and instead issued a discovery assessment due to the inaccuracy in Gurpreet’s return as a result of careless behaviour.

Settlement

• On 13/04/2015, HMRC wrote to Gurpreet to invite him to settle in respect of this scheme as part of the Contractor Loan Settlement Opportunity. Gurpreet did not settle his tax liabilities at this time.
• Gurpreet expressed an interest in the settlement in January 2018. Calculations were issued on 25/01/2018.
• The settlement was reached by way of contract settlement on 26/03/2018 for a total £154,000, which included £17,500 interest.
• Gurpreet had already paid Accelerated Payment Notices in 2015 so the remaining amount to pay was £78,000. This amount was paid in full in April 2018.
• Instalment arrangements were not put in place and no penalties were charged.

Victor Korman FCA

On Tuesday 5th March, the Government launched a consultation into how the off-payroll working rules should be implemented within the private sector from April 2020.

In particular, one of the big problems with the IR35 changes in the public sector was that contractors didn’t have any forum with which to challenge status decisions.

A key concern in the past has been that organisations may make ‘blanket’ determinations of the employment status of off-payroll workers and not understand the nuances of particular roles and relationships.

As a result, in the consultation, the Government is indicating that they will require end-hirers to provide specific reasons for each status determination and, if necessary, introduce a hirer-led status challenge process. Through this, a contractor would be able to put forward evidence to appeal a decision.

This is good news. Not only does it give contractors a route to challenge decisions, but it should also ensure that hirers take their responsibilities seriously and therefore exercise ‘reasonable care’ in their status decisions.

They will have to have good reasons for each outcome and contractors now have some comfort that, if a decision seems unfair, there is a ‘right to reply’ and a process to review evidence.