Tax Allowances for Caravans Used in the Business

Tax Allowances Caravans.jpg

You can claim tax relief, known as capital allowances, for plant and machinery that you keep to use in your business. Assuming all criteria are met, the cost of items such as tools, equipment, desks and computers can be offset against profits in the year in which they are incurred. This is subject to the annual investment allowance which is currently £200,000.

You cannot however claim capital allowances for assets in or on which the business is carried out. This includes land, buildings and other related structures.

This distinction is important when determining whether capital allowances are available for something such as a caravan. Although a caravan would typically be considered an asset in which the business is carried out, if it is intended to be moved around in the course of the qualifying activity then there may be an opportunity to claim capital allowances. HMRC guidance, however, focuses on caravan sites so there is some ambiguity with regard to the use of caravans in other trades.

Somewhat by contrast, farmers can claim tax relief on a caravan used to house a farm employee, even if it occupies a fixed site and is used solely for residential purposes (which could make for a few happy campers). However, if you are going to make such a claim, it is advisable to check  with your tax advisors beforehand in regard to your specific circumstances.

If you have any questions or comments please contact Green & Co.

Please note: This article is a commentary on general principles and should not be interpreted as advice for your specific situation.

 

Are you a farmer or a landlord?

landowner or farmer.jpg

There has always been uncertainty over whether a landowner is a farmer or a landlord for tax purposes. There has however, been a recent useful decision by the First Tier Tribunal in the case of John Carlisle Allen which has helped to clarify the capital gains tax position (and the valuable entrepreneurs relief/rollover relief ) on grass letting, and what constitutes trading or investment activities by the landowner.

The facts of the case are:

  • Mr Allen and his brother grew the grass which was eaten mainly by Mr Crooks’ stock.
  • The Allens maintained the rights to lairage – temporary housing of animals on the land, supplied fertiliser when needed, maintained fences and drainage, supplied water and engaged a Contractor to cut the weed and hedges.
  • Mr Crooks could graze stock or take silage off between 17 March and 1 November and claim the subsidy for part of the time. He was not permitted to spread artificial fertiliser on the land, only farmyard manure. He had to control his stock and repair any damage caused by them.
  • The Allens occasionally supplied fertiliser free when the grass was getting weak, but this did not happen every season.
  • The ground was left to recover over the winter for fear of poaching.
  • The £1,000 paid a year was described in the agreement as a “licence fee” rather than rent.

The Judge found in favour of the taxpayer. He stated that the Allens had demonstrated an awareness of the land and its condition and the need to maintain it. The actions were not one of a property investor. Although Mr Crooks was taking the grass, it was the Allens who were farming the land by managing it in such a way as to maximise the grass crop produced and maintain its quality. Their input into the husbandry of the land was critical.

So what can landowners take from this case if they wish to be classed as a farmer rather than a landowner?

  • Keep a diary or record of what you do from day to day, month by month.
  • Keep clear detailed notes to record the work undertaken and management carried out.
  • Carry out soil testing every few years, and take advice on applying the right quantities of lime, phosphate etc., to correct soil deficiencies, minimise wastage and maximise the crop.
  • Carry out weed control.

There are, as stated above, valuable capital gains tax reliefs which apply to a trade but not to the letting of land. Make sure you are in a position to utilise them if needed.

For further information please contact the tax team at Green & Co on 01633 871122.

Choosing the best structure for your farming business

Farming business structure.jpg

How do you know whether to choose a sole trade, partnership or limited company structure for your business? The changes in farming over recent years have made this question much more complicated. Many factors need to be taken in to consideration when making this decision.

Traditionally farms have been small family owned businesses which would usually best suit a partnership structure. Farm businesses have now developed and diversified into more complex businesses which may be more suited to incorporation. Some of the benefits of incorporation include:

  • Increased tax efficiency – by being able to receive income from both salary, dividend, rent and interest
  • Reduced risk – the business and all its liabilities can be separated from the owners assets which can reduce risk if anything goes wrong
  • Improved image – incorporation can help to convey a more professional image of the business
  • Increased flexibility – being able to sell equity allows limited companies to be flexible when raising investment and funding.

All these benefits can make incorporation appear a very attractive option; however it also has some disadvantages, such as: the cost of incorporation, the extra paperwork and administration and also having to meet greater compliance requirements.

As every farm business differs from the next it would be impossible to say what the best option would be for all farms. In this case one size does not fit all.

If you have any queries about business structures and your farming activities, please contact Green & Co.

Please note: This article is a commentary on general principles and should not be interpreted as advice for your specific situation.

HMRC, The Dairy Farmer & The Disallowed Loss

Dairy Farmer.jpg

The recent case of B and R Scambler v HMRC (TC4842) reinforces HMRC’s refusal to accept farming loss claims where they deem that the farm is not being run on a commercial basis. And there are many cases of this nature going to Tribunal.

Assuming all criteria is satisfied, self-employment losses can be offset against other income received in the year. This is known as sideways loss relief and is available to Farmers.

This loss relief is unavailable however, where a farming business has made losses in five consecutive tax years, known quite succinctly as ‘the Five Year rule’. In this instance the farmer cannot offset losses incurred in the sixth or subsequent years until there is another profit, unless he can show that “a competent person carrying out the activities at the beginning of the prior period of loss could not have reasonably expected the activities to become profitable until after the end of the current tax year.”

Mr & Mrs Scambler, who made losses from 2005/06 through to 2010/11, could not identify a specific reason why profits could not be made during these years, despite running the business competently. Their claim that the milk price was unpredictable was not thought to be sufficient justification, and they were therefore denied sideways loss relief for 2010/11.

If you would like to discuss this further please contact Green & Co.

Please note: This article is a commentary on general principles and should not be interpreted as advice for your specific situation.

Tax Relief for Farmhouse Renovations

Farmhouse.jpg

It is very likely that at some point your farmhouse and other buildings used in the farming business will require refurbishment, and it is important to be aware that whereas some repair expenditure can be relieved in the year it’s incurred (subject to a disallowed proportion for private use of buildings), alterations and improvements cannot. This is known as capital expenditure.

Repairs carried out which simply restate the building to its original condition are typically allowable as revenue expenditure. On the contrary the cost of replacing, improving or altering an asset is normally capital expenditure and can be relieved on disposal of the asset.

These rules extend to rental properties and in addition there are rules for rental properties purchased at below market value because they require extensive work in order to be habitable.

‘Capital versus revenue’ expenditure is a highly contentious issue and many cases have gone through the courts because HM Revenue & Customs and the taxpayer have disagreed over the tax treatment.

If you have any queries about taxes and the farming business please contact Green & Co.

Please note: This article is a commentary on general principles and should not be interpreted as advice for your specific situation.

The Farmer and The Five-Year Rules

pigs on the farm

There are two five-year rules that every farmer should be aware of, both of which affect the tax they pay. One has been in place for quite some time and the other was introduced in April 2016. Here is a quick re-cap of both.

The ‘five year loss’ rule seeks to ensure that farmers claim losses only when they are operating a commercial business (as opposed to a hobby). Self-employment losses can be offset against other income in the year in which they occur, or they can be carried back and offset in the previous year. However, a farmer cannot use a loss in this way if he or she has also made losses in each of the previous five tax years.

Farmers will be well versed in farmer’s averaging. Historically this allowed them to average their profits over two years in order to reduce unpredictable tax bills caused by fluctuating profits. Farmers can still average over two years; however, as of the 2016/17 tax year, they can also elect to average their profits over five years. So they now have three options in determining taxable profit.

There we have it in very brief form – a bunch of fives and a high five!

If you’d like any more information on this or any other tax-related farming queries, please contact Green & Co.

Please note: This article is a commentary on general principles and should not be interpreted as advice for your specific situation.

 

Your Redundant Farm Building could be Restricting your Inheritance Tax Relief

Your Redundant Farm Building could be Restricting your Inheritance Tax Relief.jpg

Agricultural Property Relief (APR), if obtained, allows an individual to pass on agricultural property, either in their Will or during their lifetime, free of Inheritance Tax (IHT).

Business Property Relief (BPR) reduces the IHT payable on a wider class of qualifying business assets when they are left in a Will or passed on during lifetime.

In order to qualify for APR farm buildings must be occupied for the purposes of agriculture – derelict buildings will not qualify for the relief. Similarly, if the property has not been used wholly or mainly for business purposes in the two years prior to the transfer, BPR will not be secured.

It’s important for all Farmers to consider their exposure to IHT and if farm diversification is currently being pursued, i.e. alternative uses of agricultural land and buildings, then it’s wise to act sooner rather than later.

If you would like further advice on Inheritance Tax please contact Green & Co on 01633 871122.

Please note: This article is a commentary on general principles and should not be interpreted as advice for your specific situation.

Tax Allowances on the Farm

Tax Allowances on the Farm.jpg

Certain plant and machinery can qualify for what’s known as Annual Investment Allowance (AIA), which allows businesses to claim for the cost of the new asset (up the specified threshold) in the year of purchase.

The current Annual Investment Allowance is £200,000 (in the year to 31 December 2015 the limit was £500,000) and it’s expected to stay at that level under the current Government. Plant and machinery that doesn’t qualify for AIAs can have writing down tax allowances of 18% or 8% (current year rates).

HMRC have accepted that silage clamps and slurry pits qualify as plant and machinery, which is of particular importance to farmers due to the Nitrate Vulnerable Zone Legislation.

There are many intricacies within this area of tax so it’s good practice to check with your tax adviser whether new assets or work qualify as plant and machinery in order to maximise AIAs.

Please note: This article is a commentary on general principles and should not be interpreted as advice for your specific situation.

Just An Average Farmer

iStock_000014425346_Small.jpgPrior to 6 April 2016 farmers were only able to average profits over 2 consecutive tax years. From 6 April, farmers will have a choice of averaging over 2 years or 5 years.

The introduction of this 5 year average period will be of great benefit to farmers whose profits can fluctuate considerably over a number of years. The two year average option would have been little help to a farmer who had had 3 good years where higher rate tax had been incurred, followed by 2 bad years.

Example – 2 year averaging claim

Tax Year 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
Profits 60,000 60,000 60,000 10,000 10,000
Averaging Claim 14/15, 15/16 35,000 35,000
Averaging Claim 15/16, 16/17 22,500 22,500
Total Taxable Profits after all averaging claims 60,000 60,000 35,000 22,500 22,500

 

If a 5 year averaging claim is applied the assessable profits become:

Tax Year 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
  40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000

Depending on other income this 5 year claim has removed the liability to higher rate tax which would save about £12,000.

TAX PLANNING

The ability to choose whether to average over 2 or 5 years gives scope for the farmer to plan the timing of capital expenditure if approaching the end of the fifth qualifying year. It may also be possible to utilise personal allowances which may otherwise be wasted.

The first opportunity to utilise the 5 year averaging rules will be in the  year ended 5 April 2017. Profits muse be reviewed before the year end to ensure any planning opportunities can be under taken.

For more information contact Green & Co.

Please note: This article is a commentary on general principles and should not be interpreted as advice for your specific situation.

 

Main Residence Nil Rate Band (RNRB)

ID-10029464

The introduction of the Main Residence Nil Rate Band (RNRB) may have a substantial impact on Inheritance Tax Planning and how farmers pass on their assets, possibly tax-free.

The new allowance is due to be introduce by April 2017 at an initial threshold of £100,000 which will rise to £175,000 by April 2020. This threshold is per individual and it will also be possible to transfer the allowance between married couples and civil partners.

The RNRB is in addition to the existing Nil Rate Band of £325,000 which is the current allowance available on the estate of each individual, the main difference being that the RNRB is tied in to residential property.

The RNRB allows complete relief from Inheritance Tax up to the threshold on a house lived in by the deceased at any time, provided that the house is given to a direct descendant such as a child, grandchild etc. or a spouse,  and that the net value of the estate at the date of death is £2m or lower.

With timely Inheritance Tax Planning, this new band could offer more flexible relief for those wishing to take a step back from active farming and where other avenues of tax relief, such as Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief, have more restrictions or may not apply.

Please note: This article is a commentary on general principles and should not be interpreted as advice for your specific situation.

Image courtesy of Clare Bloomfield at FreeDigitalPhotos.net