This Q&A refers to the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) under which the EU provides the farming industry with rural grants and payments. HMRC issued a ‘Tax Bulletin Special Edition’ in June 2005 about the Single Payment Scheme, which was the predecessor to the BPS. We understand that this still represents HMRC’s views on the VAT implications of the BPS. This publication can still be viewed on HMRC’s archive website here: Tax Bulletin Special Edition—June 2005 This is an extract from the VAT section of the Bulletin: ‘If PE [payment entitlement] is sold without land then VAT will be due at the standard

The time limits for referring complaints to the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) changed on 1 April 2023. Before that date, there were effectively five different time limits: 8 weeks After which a complainant can refer their claim to Legal Ombudsman (LeO) if you have failed to resolve it 6 months From the date of the firm's written response (but only if the firm gave the complainant all the required information) 3 years (1 year from 1 April 2023) From the date of the act/omission 6 years (1 year from 1 April 2023) From the date the complainant should reasonably have known there were grounds for complaint At LeO discretion LeO may extend time limits to the extent it considers fair in exceptional circumstances From 1 April 2023, time limits for complaining to LeO are reduced to: • one year from the date of the act or omission being complained about, or • one year from the date when the complainant should reasonably

Organisations of all types and sizes process data about a variety of people every day, particularly about staff and clients. Much of this will be personal data under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998), ie: • data that can be used to identify a living person • that is held or intended to be held on computers or manual records in a relevant filing system The person to whom the data relates is called 'the data subject'. They have the right to be informed by any data controller whether personal data relating to them is being processed by or on behalf of that data controller. The

Where a local highway authority of its own volition wishes to adopt a street so that it would become a highway maintainable at the public expense, it may use either the advance payments code in sections 219–225 of the Highways Act 1980 (HiA 1980) or the private street works code in HiA 1980, ss 205–218. What is the advanced payments code? The advance payments code is the compulsory process to secure the road charge liability for frontage properties and applies to a street or proposed street where building work is proposed with a frontage onto that street. It involves cash deposits being made by the developer to the highway authority before building works can commence. It is an offence, subject to prosecution, to undertake any house building until these payments have been deposited with the highway authority. The money securing the road charges liability is used to offset the cost of works in instances where the highway authority

Under section 239 of the Finance Act 2004 (FA 2004), the scheme sanction charge is a charge to income tax which arises where, in any tax year, one or more scheme chargeable payments are made by a registered pension scheme. Under the Registered Pension Schemes (Accounting and Assessment) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/3454, reg 4 (see Case 4 in Table 2), where a charge to tax arises under FA 2004, s 239 (ie scheme sanction charge), HMRC must issue an assessment to tax on the

See Practice Note: Eyewitness identification evidence, which outlines that Code D of PACE allows for the showing of films such as CCTV or photographs of incidents through the media for purposes of recognition and tracing of suspects. In addition, there have been a number of cases before the courts that have touched on the usage of CCTV for the purposes of identification. In R v Selwyn, the Divisional Court ruled that CCTV footage identification evidence by

An application under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) is defined as a financial remedy by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 2.3, which states, inter alia, that a financial remedy includes ‘an order under Schedule 1 to the 1989 Act’. As such, ChA 1989, Sch 1 proceedings are governed by the procedure for a financial remedy set out in FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 9 and FPR 2010, PD 9A. Amendments made by the Family Procedure (Amendment) rules 2018, SI 2018/440 from 4 June 2018 provide that only an application for an order for periodical payments under ChA 1989, Sch 1, paras 1(2)(a), 1(2)(b), 2(2)(a) and 9 will now be dealt with under the shortened procedure in FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 9 (now called

Refer to Practice Note: Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998, and in particular the section ‘Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998—Calculating the statutory interest’. Under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Rate of Interest) (No 3) Order 2002, SI 2002/1675, at the start of each six-month period, the base rate will be made a fixed ‘reference rate’ for the subsequent

A spent conviction is a conviction which, pursuant to the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA 1974), is treated as being ignored, for many purposes (such as employment) after a specified period of time. That period is established based upon the sentence given, rather than the offence. The legislative purpose behind ROA 1974 is to provide that, for most purposes, the fact of a criminal conviction should not unduly affect the offender once a period of rehabilitation has passed. Ordinarily in the scope of many court proceedings, the fact of the spent conviction need not be disclosed. A spent criminal conviction will not show up on a basic criminal record check, but would be revealed by the basic or enhanced criminal record check that would be carried out by the local authority initiating the care proceedings. In a public

Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002), if the court determines that a defendant has benefited from criminal conduct then it can make a confiscation order to deprive that defendant of the benefit they gained (see Practice Note: Confiscation under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002). When making a confiscation order, the court should consider three questions (see R v May): • whether the defendant has benefited from criminal conduct • what the value is of the benefit that the defendant has obtained, and • what sum is recoverable from the defendant POCA 2002, s 76(1) defines criminal conduct as conduct which

Provision in a partnership agreement for the death of a partner often provides for the purchase by the surviving partner or partners of the testator's interest. This can take the form of automatic accruer of his share to the other partners with an obligation on them to make a payment to his personal representatives, an obligation by the surviving partners to buy and the testator's personal representatives to sell his share, or an option for the surviving partners to buy his share. The obligation

If the official receiver (OR) had been the previous liquidator then early dissolution could have been carried out under section 202 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) by the OR making the appropriate application to the Registrar of Companies. The OR could alternatively have sent a final statement to creditors under IA 1986, s 146 and then reported to the Registrar of Companies. In this case, the company would be dissolved at the end of three months after the Registrar of Companies registered the relevant notice from the OR under IA 1986, s 205. If the previous liquidator had been someone other than the OR then the company's dissolution would have taken place three months after the liquidator's final section 146 reports had been registered by the Registrar of Companies, again under IA 1986, s 205. In all these situations the closure of the company and therefore the eventual dissolution of the company