The Construction Industry Training Board has announced HMRC are no longer supporting their levy deduction as of April 2014. In case you’re unfamiliar, the CITB is responsible for vocational training within the construction industry.
For completing training they can impose a charge on employers or contractors to fund it’s operation. They also provide grants to training courses that are approved by them.
Contractors then usually try to recoup this outlay from subcontractors in the form of a deduction made from the gross invoice payment due to a contractor. For years now, this payment has been excluded from the ‘gross amount’ payment on the contractor’s monthly return.
HMRC have not only accepted this method of working but gone to extensive efforts to promote it, for example within its published guidance booklet ‘CIS340 – Construction Industry Scheme. Guide for contractors and subcontractors’. Continue reading
According to new research from CITB, the UK will see more than 182,000 new jobs in construction open up over the next five years, thanks to huge demand for new homes. This will lead to an influx of PAYE and CIS tax claims as the growing industry places more builders and workers into temporary building sites.
The Construction Skills Network Forecast from CITB demonstrates that a third of the UK’s entire construction output until 2018 will be the building of new homes. CITB cited the government’s Help to Buy Scheme as having a positive effect on the construction industry, but highlighted the need for more sustained investment in industrial projects and long-term infrastructure to ensure secured growth after 2015.
The report has been welcomed by the construction industry across the UK following a year in which more than 40,000 construction jobs were lost as the volume of public non-housing construction being undertaken dramatically reduced. Continue reading
A man has brought a High Court challenge in an attempt to avoid being extradited to Great Britain, where authorities are waiting to question him in connection with a £100 million alleged construction tax claims fraud through his company money laundering scheme, but the case has been adjourned for a further three weeks.
64 year old James Anthony Tighe is accused by the UK authorities of heading up a huge public revenue fraud. According to evidence heard previously, Mr Tighe allegedly defrauded HMRC systematically using a number of construction firms.
Authorities in Britain are seeking Tighe’s surrender for charges including conspiracy to commit money laundering, cheating the public revenue and conspiracy to cheat the public revenue. between January 1997 and December 2005.
A European warrant for Mr Tighe’s arrest was issued in September of 2011 and he was arrested on foot in July 2012. Tighe, who hails from Pettiswood in County Westmeath, will have to wait for two separate cases to be dealt with by Justice John Edwards before he delivers a judgement. Continue reading
As we have always stated we (Express Tax Claims) always try to go the little bit further for you than any of our competitors do.
When we released a fresh updated look for our website, we included some facts and figures that a potential customer could use as a guideline of what they could expect to claim.
When our competitors had seen that we were advertising an average tax refund amount of £1200 per year per client, they simply could not believe what they were seeing so called in the ASA to investigate.
We could not be more proud to say that ASA found most of their claims (three out of four) to be invalid and were judged as “Not Upheld”, as we were completely able to prove that actually these average claims were in fact completely accurate.
The one claim that was “Upheld” was one regarding comparison of service costs, because unlike our competitors we do not differentiate in costs/fees between PAYE or CIS claims but in our comparison table we compared our blanket fees to our competitors, although technically correct it was mislabelled and not very clear, obviously as soon as this information came to light we immediately changed the comparison table to be much clearer.
In order to remain completely transparent to both our customers and our competitors, below is an unedited extract directly from the adjudication from the ASA. Continue reading