Re: Winding up petition : Thu Jul 28, 2016 7:59 pm  

Bully_Boxer wrote:

I'm past worrying, if we go tits up.. we go tits up. Not much more that the devoted fans who turn up each week can do to alter that.

Exactly

Re: Winding up petition : Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:30 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Exactly

Couldn't agree more

Re: Winding up petition : Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:54 pm  

I've come to accept that in spite of any perceived injustices, I will continue to turn up and do what I always do, while feeling slightly anxious. It's the Bulls fan experience, and when pro Rugby League in Bradford is less of a mess I will have earned the enjoyment and reflected glory that it will yield.

Re: Winding up petition : Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:18 am  

That is another downside to smaller crowds it is easier for the dreaded VATman to count them

Re: Winding up petition : Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:40 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Well, I'm no expert on VAt or tax assessments, but I do know (because I've been advocating it for years) that if HMRC want, they can simply raise a tax assessment to a company, and they then must pay that, they can appeal it if they want, but they still must pay in the first place. I can't see why they don't do that to force the Starbucks and Vodafones of this world to cough up.

Anyhoo, if its like that, then you have to pay up, even if you appeal, although the sporting thing would be for HMRC to wait and see. They don't have a big rep for being sporting.

That's not necessarily true. All joking aside the tax man can be quite
flexible. I deal with old IR staff and old Customs and Excise staff. IR staff are still lagging behind their colleagues that came from Customs in the a hole department.

It takes a while to get to the stage where they issue a WUP or they've been listening to Yorkshire radio and got excited.

Re: Winding up petition : Fri Jul 29, 2016 7:09 am  

SombreroBu11 wrote:

VAT Assessments are generally raised for one of two reasons:

1. A trader hasn't filed their return so HMRC estimate the amount of VAT due, normally based on previous returns. (Note: It won't be this. These assessments aren't appealable and the only way to get rid of it is to file your return).

2. HMRC disagree with a trader's return. This can be all sorts of reasons from undeclared invoices to a disagreement over which rate band something falls into (ala HMRC and Greggs arguing over whether Greggs should pay VAT for serving "hot" food, or the argument with McVities about whether a Jaffa Cake is a cake or a biscuit, one of which is VAT zero rated but I can't remember which is which).

There can be other reasons but it's generally one of those. I'm not speculating on why the club have had an assessment though.

Are we arguing that Luaki is an unheated pudding?

Re: Winding up petition : Fri Jul 29, 2016 8:27 am  

SombreroBu11 wrote:

VAT Assessments are generally raised for one of two reasons:

1. A trader hasn't filed their return so HMRC estimate the amount of VAT due, normally based on previous returns. (Note: It won't be this. These assessments aren't appealable and the only way to get rid of it is to file your return).

2. HMRC disagree with a trader's return. This can be all sorts of reasons from undeclared invoices to a disagreement over which rate band something falls into (ala HMRC and Greggs arguing over whether Greggs should pay VAT for serving "hot" food, or the argument with McVities about whether a Jaffa Cake is a cake or a biscuit, one of which is VAT zero rated but I can't remember which is which).

There can be other reasons but it's generally one of those. I'm not speculating on why the club have had an assessment though.

It's the second point that HMRC explained to the listeners yesterday evening.

Although they won't comment on individual cases the explanation on how the system works was most fascinating for the majority of listeners who don't fully understand the implications and financial penalties of false information or late submittance etc...

Re: Winding up petition : Fri Jul 29, 2016 9:54 am  

Maybe we disputed paying them the VAT on admissions, on the grounds the team wasn't providing any sort of service?







I'll get me coat ... again

Re: Winding up petition : Fri Jul 29, 2016 9:58 am  

MicktheGled wrote:

SombreroBu11 wrote:

VAT Assessments are generally raised for one of two reasons:

1. A trader hasn't filed their return so HMRC estimate the amount of VAT due, normally based on previous returns. (Note: It won't be this. These assessments aren't appealable and the only way to get rid of it is to file your return).

2. HMRC disagree with a trader's return. This can be all sorts of reasons from undeclared invoices to a disagreement over which rate band something falls into (ala HMRC and Greggs arguing over whether Greggs should pay VAT for serving "hot" food, or the argument with McVities about whether a Jaffa Cake is a cake or a biscuit, one of which is VAT zero rated but I can't remember which is which).

There can be other reasons but it's generally one of those. I'm not speculating on why the club have had an assessment though.

It's the second point that HMRC explained to the listeners yesterday evening.

Although they won't comment on individual cases the explanation on how the system works was most fascinating for the majority of listeners who don't fully understand the implications and financial penalties of false information or late submittance etc...

I caught the last bit and have I got this right in that the lady from HMRC explained that VAT assessments are only issued where the company has been lax in filing returns or been found to be lacking in accuracy in previous returns. So the winding-up procedure is the very last form of enforcement that HMRC use when all other forms have been exhausted. So HMRC use the bulls VAT is based on money that the company has received so they have had that money but used it for purposes other than payment of taxes to HMRC? if correct then someone at Odsal needs to be held accountable for this mess.

Re: Winding up petition : Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:00 am  

[code][/code]

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Maybe we disputed paying them the VAT on admissions, on the grounds the team wasn't providing any sort of service?







I'll get me coat ... again

that's my mid morning chuckle sorted