Personal tax - your thoughts?

Options
12346

Comments

  • mrspnut
    mrspnut Registered Posts: 70 Regular contributor ⭐
    Options
    safrica wrote: »
    It puzzled me for a while as well...at first, I thought it was exempt as under £5000, but it was provided from 1st July so I worked out the equivalent for the whole tax year would have been £5,333...so decided to include it in my benefits....bur really don't know now...I just did that because I found strange there was only one benefit in total (flat), so when re-checking I had not missed something, I spotted that....maybe over-thinking ???

    Definitely not taxable because it was under 5k, doesn't matter about time apportionment. If it had originally been for over 5k, it would still have become exempt the minute the amount owed fell below 5k iyswim.
  • Claire321
    Claire321 Registered Posts: 209 Dedicated contributor 🦉
    Options
    Cyfarthfa wrote: »
    Is that is 1.1? It was under 5k so exempt

    I didn't know that - i'm sure it wasn't in my book - at least I know now!
  • jnrmo
    jnrmo Registered Posts: 14 New contributor 🐸
    Options
    mrspnut wrote: »
    Definitely not taxable because it was under 5k, doesn't matter about time apportionment. If it had originally been for over 5k, it would still have become exempt the minute the amount owed fell below 5k iyswim.

    I made 7 errors in total from what i have worked out you rekan thats a staight fail?
  • Claire321
    Claire321 Registered Posts: 209 Dedicated contributor 🦉
    Options
    jnrmo wrote: »
    I made 7 errors in total from what i have worked out you rekan thats a staight fail?

    I would hope not as there must be quite a few marks available per question and you should still get marks for the parts of each question which were correct - fingers crossed
  • jnrmo
    jnrmo Registered Posts: 14 New contributor 🐸
    Options
    Claire321 wrote: »
    I would hope not as there must be quite a few marks available per question and you should still get marks for the parts of each question which were correct - fingers crossed

    thanks just a bit worried thats all like from some of the answers people have been putting up has made me worried about what i put down.

    i know its pointless worrying about it now because nothing can be changed!!!
  • Claire321
    Claire321 Registered Posts: 209 Dedicated contributor 🦉
    Options
    jnrmo wrote: »
    thanks just a bit worried thats all like from some of the answers people have been putting up has made me worried about what i put down.

    i know its pointless worrying about it now because nothing can be changed!!!

    Honestly I wouldn't worry. In the past I've thought there's no way I could have passed other exams but was then pleasently surprised I've actually passed!
  • Byrnie
    Byrnie Registered Posts: 16 New contributor 🐸
    Options
    Sally wrote: »
    How about the woodworm riddled antique - 6000 - 15300 loss of 9300 .... i think? Any other answers

    In one of practice papers when calculating a gain when cost was under £6000 incidental costs of sale were ignored so I kind of guessed same would apply to a loss so I made it a loss of £9000. Ooops! Did mention auctioneers costs though. Hope that counts for something
  • MARY_O
    MARY_O Registered Posts: 10 New contributor 🐸
    Options
    jnrmo wrote: »
    thanks just a bit worried thats all like from some of the answers people have been putting up has made me worried about what i put down.

    i know its pointless worrying about it now because nothing can be changed!!!

    Yes - I was feeling OK about the exam, after reading this here I'm not so sure - messed up on the list price of the car, and probably the disposal of the land - I did it by going back to the original disposal, calculating how much of the original cost was realised then. Then took the gain as the proceeds in recent deal less what was left of the original cost. At least I think that's what I did! Messed up on ethics thing too - said I wouldn't exchange personal information as I had a professional relationship with Bridget not a personal one. In fact I think I'd have passed on the number personally, but didn't know if that was what was expected!
  • talinka
    talinka Registered Posts: 45 Regular contributor ⭐
    Options
    Claire321 wrote: »
    Honestly I wouldn't worry. In the past I've thought there's no way I could have passed other exams but was then pleasently surprised I've actually passed!
    jnrmo wrote: »
    thanks just a bit worried thats all like from some of the answers people have been putting up has made me worried about what i put down.

    i know its pointless worrying about it now because nothing can be changed!!!

    Someone posted a link this week on forum about last year's pass rates. I tried to find it and couldn't unfortunatelly. But i do remember PTC was something around 90% the highest of all which makes me believe it's the easiest from the lot.
  • jnrmo
    jnrmo Registered Posts: 14 New contributor 🐸
    Options
    talinka wrote: »
    Someone posted a link this week on forum about last year's pass rates. I tried to find it and couldn't unfortunatelly. But i do remember PTC was something around 90% the highest of all which makes me believe it's the easiest from the lot.

    thanks guys aprreciate the comments. think its time to think about something else now. infact the world cup draw is about to happen might take my mind off the taxes exam.

    take care all of ya and best of luck for whenever the exam results are out.

    thanks again.
  • jnrmo
    jnrmo Registered Posts: 14 New contributor 🐸
    Options
    talinka wrote: »
    Someone posted a link this week on forum about last year's pass rates. I tried to find it and couldn't unfortunatelly. But i do remember PTC was something around 90% the highest of all which makes me believe it's the easiest from the lot.

    which would mean that i would be evan more gutted if i failed based on what your saying lol!!!
  • Byrnie
    Byrnie Registered Posts: 16 New contributor 🐸
    Options
    lewpylew wrote: »
    For the car I took the value of £25,000 and she paid 30%(15% + 12% for 195 co2 and 3% for a diesel) which gave £7500 car benefit and £16,900 x 30% for fuel = £5,070.

    Me Too
  • Byrnie
    Byrnie Registered Posts: 16 New contributor 🐸
    Options
    Jointy wrote: »
    For the part disposal i did the following

    it was purchased in 1998 for 300k

    in 2003 disposed of 20 acres

    300k x 180K/ = £125,581
    (180k+250k)

    In 2009 disposed of 30 acres therefore

    Proceeds - £350,000
    Cost - £300,000 - £125,581 = £174,419
    Gain £175,581

    That sounds familiar!! :@)
  • Cyfarthfa
    Cyfarthfa Registered Posts: 62 Regular contributor ⭐
    Options
    MARY_O wrote: »
    Yes - I was feeling OK about the exam, after reading this here I'm not so sure - messed up on the list price of the car, and probably the disposal of the land - I did it by going back to the original disposal, calculating how much of the original cost was realised then. Then took the gain as the proceeds in recent deal less what was left of the original cost. At least I think that's what I did! Messed up on ethics thing too - said I wouldn't exchange personal information as I had a professional relationship with Bridget not a personal one. In fact I think I'd have passed on the number personally, but didn't know if that was what was expected!

    Mary - I reckon you're right on the telephone number (although i didn't quite put that). When I read what you put I think it's the best answer out of the whole lot!
  • rachy1975
    rachy1975 Registered Posts: 366 Dedicated contributor 🦉
    Options
    with the phone number i said i wouldnt pass it on as it was a private matter and i was not there for that....also that you didnt know if there was history between them so best not too....never know she may have done time for tryin to kill him in previous years or something....lol
  • A-Vic
    A-Vic Registered Posts: 6,970 Beyond epic contributor 🧙‍♂️
    Options
    rachy1975 wrote: »
    with the phone number i said i wouldnt pass it on as it was a private matter and i was not there for that....also that you didnt know if there was history between them so best not too....never know she may have done time for tryin to kill him in previous years or something....lol

    lol paronide love it
  • C2XVT
    C2XVT Registered Posts: 62 Regular contributor ⭐
    Options
    The thing with these tax exams is everyone feels they completed everything 100% correctly until they see the answers.
  • A-Vic
    A-Vic Registered Posts: 6,970 Beyond epic contributor 🧙‍♂️
    Options
    C2XVT wrote: »
    The thing with these tax exams is everyone feels they completed everything 100% correctly until they see the answers.

    not me
  • stuart_89
    stuart_89 Registered Posts: 3 New contributor 🐸
    Options
    why was the loan an exempt benefit? do you mean the loan amount or the interest? because there is a benefit as the loan is interest free isn't there?

    also with the part disposal i worked out the cost of the disposal in the past (in usual proceeds over proceeds + remaining value), so to take it away from the original cost, giving the cost of the remianing land.
  • MARY_O
    MARY_O Registered Posts: 10 New contributor 🐸
    Options
    Cyfarthfa wrote: »
    Mary - I reckon you're right on the telephone number (although i didn't quite put that). When I read what you put I think it's the best answer out of the whole lot!

    Oh good - hope we're right then!
  • MARY_O
    MARY_O Registered Posts: 10 New contributor 🐸
    Options
    stuart_89 wrote: »
    why was the loan an exempt benefit? do you mean the loan amount or the interest? because there is a benefit as the loan is interest free isn't there?

    also with the part disposal i worked out the cost of the disposal in the past (in usual proceeds over proceeds + remaining value), so to take it away from the original cost, giving the cost of the remianing land.

    The loan's an exempt benefit as it's less than £5000 - our tutor went on and on about all these benefits in kind - now I'm glad, as that's one of the things that I DID remember, lol!
  • MARY_O
    MARY_O Registered Posts: 10 New contributor 🐸
    Options
    rachy1975 wrote: »
    with the phone number i said i wouldnt pass it on as it was a private matter and i was not there for that....also that you didnt know if there was history between them so best not too....never know she may have done time for tryin to kill him in previous years or something....lol

    Love that answer!!
  • Ed1
    Ed1 Registered Posts: 51 Regular contributor ⭐
    Options
    With regards to the telephone number question, I get the impression from previous Chief Assessors' reports that if an answer is tailored and explained to the specific question (rather than just regurgitating previous past paper answers learned by rote) then there is a high chance of being awarded marks, even if the actual end result differs from the model answer.
  • MARY_O
    MARY_O Registered Posts: 10 New contributor 🐸
    Options
    If we fail..new standards/format next year?

    What happens if we fail this year altogether? What are the new standards about? I expect this is posted somewhere here, but I am new here, and would be grateful if someone would tell me where details of the new format next year are?
  • A-Vic
    A-Vic Registered Posts: 6,970 Beyond epic contributor 🧙‍♂️
    Options
    what ive been told it wont matter if you fail an exam and have one outstanding you wont have to re-do the whole year by my tutor
  • MARY_O
    MARY_O Registered Posts: 10 New contributor 🐸
    Options
    A-Vic wrote: »
    what ive been told it wont matter if you fail an exam and have one outstanding you wont have to re-do the whole year by my tutor

    That's good. Oh well, off out for a drink with my mates! At least now I don't have to think I should be revising :o)
  • razvi
    razvi Registered Posts: 4 New contributor 🐸
    Options
    Ptc land

    You need to work out the cost of 30 acre land from original cost which is 300grand 300*30/50=180000 this is the cost now you use the formula a/a+b*180000=350/350+250*180=105000-350000=245000 cg
  • sorcha
    sorcha Registered Posts: 9 New contributor 🐸
    Options
    PTC / agents letting fee

    Lots of discussion about whether to have charged the 6% commission on the whole tenancy or only the months that the tenants stayed. In reality, agents charge their fees for the whole of the tenancy up front - in this case a yearly tenancy. If the tenants subsequently leave the contract early, the landlord can ask the agents for a refund of fees pro rata on the vacant months if they can prove that the agents failed to assess the prospective tenants's references correctly. This is unlikely to be successful, so the next step is to add the fees pro rata to the missing rent that they pursue the tenants for. Otherwise it's an expense the landlord has to bear - and it's tax deductable as we know!
  • A-Vic
    A-Vic Registered Posts: 6,970 Beyond epic contributor 🧙‍♂️
    Options
    sorcha wrote: »
    Lots of discussion about whether to have charged the 6% commission on the whole tenancy or only the months that the tenants stayed. In reality, agents charge their fees for the whole of the tenancy up front - in this case a yearly tenancy. If the tenants subsequently leave the contract early, the landlord can ask the agents for a refund of fees pro rata on the vacant months if they can prove that the agents failed to assess the prospective tenants's references correctly. This is unlikely to be successful, so the next step is to add the fees pro rata to the missing rent that they pursue the tenants for. Otherwise it's an expense the landlord has to bear - and it's tax deductable as we know!

    it only mentioned a whole years tenency for the new couple not the previous thats why i didnt charge the whole year
  • Springhill14
    Springhill14 Registered Posts: 2 New contributor 🐸
    Options
    Springhill14

    What u mean a nice paper - it was full of tricky bits. That land question was a bummer, so was the tricky mobile phone. Section 2 was ok though
Privacy Policy