Clive Smaldon

Not HMRC...NRL1 enables rent to be received gross for non resident landlords. If you havent completed one the agency or tenant should be deducteing basic rate tax before paying you the net and paying the tax direct to HMRC. You would then complete the SA return on the basis of gross rent charged and expenses and claim the tax paid at source against your liability (you would need the amounts and references to where the tax had been paid from the payer so HMRC can trace it to give you the credit). A NRL1 means no tax is deducted by tenant/agency, you enter the the gross rent and expenses on the SA return and pay all the tax due per normal dates. Most non resident landlords complete NRL1 as it aids cashflow and they then control the tax payable rather than someone else. Either way, SA returns are necessary as a non resident landlord,

Not HMRC...if it was in a "dividend" account then dividends are not earned income and dont qualify for pension relief. If taken on winding up the company this would likely be a distribution of capital from either a directors loan account if owed from the company and in credit (which is "repayment" of funds owed), or in respect of share value on winding up (CGT with potential busiess asset releif)...again, not earned income, so no pension releif due. The only way a director can get the money out as earnings available for pension releif is via PAYE for salary, and this hasnt happened...so no pension releif is due, sorry...unless Im missing something...the company accountants should advise how the funds were treated in the final set of company accounts.

Not HMRC...no, different tax years, if profit in one year then need to submit return based on gain less exemption and pay the tax due. If loss in second year that is then available to carry forward (cannot carry back). If other way round and loss in year one that can be carried forward to offset gain in second year.

Not HMRC...this is what is so ridiculous about the whole situation surrounding 51/1 versus 13 x amount...the difference on this is £18.70, for the basic rate taxpayer this is a tax difference of £3.74 tax...in no other area of taxation would HMRC question or amend or seek to collect this if it were the positon annually, recognizing what is reduced in one year is then mde up again in the following year following the same methodology until the person passes...tax codes round the position to nearest £5 as it is...

...Im assuming you are contending it doesnt matter the additional borrowing purpose if pre letting...taking that to an extreme...if someone borrows £140k to buy a property, and then borrows another £80k against it and spends that £80k on a world cruise for a year with the funds etc, before then a couple of years later deciding to rent the property out, because the additional £80k was before the letting started, HMRC would be ok with the claiming of relief on the full £220k including the amount splashed on the cruise....I'd be interested to hear HMRC's take on that/any legislation that confirms that...

As requested Anthony...It always works, on any figure, at any rate of tax...removing income that would otherwise have been liable to tax from tax altogether saves tax for that individual, no matter how their income sources are split, at their highest rate.

Not HMRC...if you are tax resident in both countries you need to determine your Treaty tax residence (article 4) under the UK/Canada DTA. Some sources (pensions for example, article 17) may be taxable only in one country, in which case they dont go on the tax return in the other country (so you cant claim tax credit as the pension is only liable in one county only, that country will be the one you determine you are Treaty resident in accordance with article 4), whereas property income may be taxed in both countries with a tax credit in the other as the treaty allows the property to be taxed where it is, but you will also be liable on it in the other country...where it says ONLY for a source then it only goes on the return where you are Treaty tax resident, where it says a source MAY be taxed in a country then its liable in both if statutorily tax resident in both, with a tax credit in the other.

Not HMRC...this sounds like an in year adjustment for an estimated in year underpayment?...in which case, no you cant pay it direct...if its a liability for a prior year then what HMRC said would be correct

Not HMRC...per that link...only if the individual is self employed and "trading"...if you are not actively trading it is not taxable income (same as cashback)...for most people even if they were trading the amount would be less than the trading allowance of £1k annually anyway so wouldnt be reportable. If you are doing this regularly, repeatedly and "earning" substantial amounts as an "income" you may be "trading"...for you to decide, but for most people who do this occasionally and more as "one off" events then it is not taxable income...unless HMRC disagrees with that?...

Not HMRC...HMRC, contribtuions by NHS locums are ALWAYS treated as old style retirement annuity contracts, have been since time immemorial...gross pension payments, no tax releif given, treated as a dedcution before tax is calculated (like the personal allowance)