<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Mark McLaughlin Associates</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk</link>
	<description>Chartered Tax Advisers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 05:45:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Offshore Penalties</title>
		<link>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/457</link>
		<comments>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/457#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 05:44:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/?p=457</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The first Finance Act of 2010 introduced a new penalty regime in respect of undisclosed offshore accounts, from a date to be appointed by Treasury Order. The publicity generated by this legislation resulted from a &#8216;headline&#8217; maximum penalty rate of 200%. Many individuals, particular those with a foreign connection, have offshore accounts these days. In [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/457/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Disappearing Concessions</title>
		<link>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/451</link>
		<comments>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/451#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 05:36:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/?p=451</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Extra Statutory Concessions (ESCs) have been with us for decades, but are now slowly disappearing. This follows the House of Lords&#8217; decision in R v HM Commissioners of Inland Revenue ex p Wilkinson [2006] STC 270, which raised issues about the validity of ESCs and the extent of HMRCâ€™s discretion to make and apply them [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/451/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gift Aid Problems</title>
		<link>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/447</link>
		<comments>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/447#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 05:45:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/?p=447</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The reduction in personal allowances for those with income exceeding Â£100,000 was introduced from 6 April 2010 for 2010-11 and later years. The effect of legislation introduced in Finance Act 2009 is that personal allowances above that level are tapered away, and at current levels are reduced to nil if adjusted net income exceeds Â£112,950, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/447/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Practice Update &#8211; July / August 2010</title>
		<link>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/445</link>
		<comments>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/445#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 05:42:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Newsletters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/?p=445</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this edition of Practice Update:
1. Property businesses &#8211; repairs â€“ a recent tax case offers guidance on the capital/revenue distinction.
2. Personal allowances and gift aid â€“ take care when making gift aid carry back claims.Â Â
3. Extra-statutory concessions â€“ watch out for disappearing ESCs. Is ESC C16 next?
4. Penalties: offshore income and gains â€“ 200% [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/445/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Property Repairs</title>
		<link>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/442</link>
		<comments>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/442#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 05:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/?p=442</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Distinguishing between repairs expenditure and capital costs is often difficult. The distinction can become even more difficult in the case of an old, dilapidated building.
Where thereâ€™s a Will(s)â€¦
In Christopher Wills v Revenue &#38; Customs [2010] UKFTT 174 (TC), the taxpayer appealed when HMRC disallowed a claim for Â£43,665 in respect of repairs to an outbuilding [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/442/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Record Keeping</title>
		<link>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/435</link>
		<comments>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/435#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 05:43:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/?p=435</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8216;New HMRC powers&#8217; is a phrase we have all become accustomed to hearing over the last few years. Among those powers is the facility for HMRC to make regulations specifying the records and supporting documents which must be kept, and the period for which they must be retained.
HMRCâ€™s record keeping powers were introduced for income [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/435/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Transactions in Securities</title>
		<link>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/433</link>
		<comments>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/433#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 05:41:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/?p=433</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When dealing with company reorganisations and some business sales, it is generally good practice to apply to HMRC for clearance (under ITA 2007, s 701) that the anti-avoidance rules regarding &#8216;transactions in securities&#8217; will not apply to treat a capital transaction as giving rise to a potential income tax liability. The rules were originally introduced [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/433/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dividend Oddities</title>
		<link>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/431</link>
		<comments>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/431#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 05:38:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/?p=431</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recent case law has highlighted two interesting scenarios involving dividend payments.
Recategorised dividends
In Stirling Investments v HMRC [2010] VKFTT 61 (TC) TCOO374, a VAT Case, a husband and a wife partnership were also director shareholders of a company. The partnership invoiced the company for a management charge of Â£525,000 plus VAT. However, the company later sought [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/431/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IHT &#8211; Deliberate Omissions</title>
		<link>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/429</link>
		<comments>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/429#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 05:35:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/?p=429</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For Inheritance Tax (IHT) purposes, the general rule is that a transfer of value requires positive action by the person making it, such as the gift of an asset. However, in certain circumstances a failure to take positive action is treated as a disposition as well. In particular, the deliberate omission to exercise a right [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/429/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Practice Update &#8211; May / June 2010</title>
		<link>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/424</link>
		<comments>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/424#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 May 2010 11:02:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Newsletters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/?p=424</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this edition of Practice Update:
1. Dividend oddities â€“ Recent unusual cases involving dividend payments.
2. Record keeping â€“ The new HMRC powers. Is formal documentation always necessary?Â
3. Transactions in securities â€“ The updated anti-avoidance provisions.
4. IHT deliberate omissions â€“ When refraining from taking action can have IHT consequences.Â Â 
Download version (pdf): Download
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/424/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
