Articles from Centre Stage Accountants
Buy
or lease to equip your business?
Should
you buy or lease the major items of equipment and vehicles yourequire
for your business? There are pros & cons to both. This years
reform of capital allowances, which give tax relief for equipment
purchases, may alter your decision.
From
April 2008, you can claim immediate tax relief on up to £50,000
a year that your business spends on buying any type of plant and machinery,
including many fixtures in buildings and vans, though not motor cars.
The
£50,000 annual investment allowance (AIA) is proportionately
reduced if your accounting period started before April 2008. For example,
a company with an accounting year starting on 1 January can claim
the AIA on up to £37,500 in 2008 (9/12 x £50,000). Purchases
in the two years before April 2008 qualify for the old first-year
allowances of 50% for a small business and 40% if your business is
medium-sized.
The
AIA favours the purchase of equipment. However, if you do spend more
than the AIA, the excess will only qualify for writing down allowances
at 20%, instead of 25% before April 2008. A hybrid rate of writing
down allowance will be applied for accounting periods straddling 1
April 2008. 20% is also the current rate for most cars. Tax relief
for purchases will therefore take longer.
If you
lease, you cannot normally claim capital allowances unless the agreement
is effectively a hire purchase contract. But the lease rentals are
an allowable expense, though relief is restricted on leasing payments
for a car costing more than £12,000.
Of course,
tax is not the only consideration. If you buy outright, you will usually
pay less overall than on a leasing agreement, but youmay need to borrow
the money to make the purchase, which could be costly in itself. Leasing
could tie you into long-term agreements that might be difficult to
terminate, but buying could leave you with equipment that you might
not need in the future.
If
you are planning to buy or lease major equipment, please talk to us,
and let us help you understand the costs
Unfair
Dismissal - Don't Get It Wrong
You
may have had to cope with a whole host of personnel-related issues
over the years, and almost certainly played it by the book. However,
even experienced employers can get it wrong. Here is a case in point.
Pushing
the boundaries
An employee's
performance and attitude were deteriorating and so she was spoken
to by her manager. Six months prior she had suffered a miscarriage
and although distressed had returned to work and appeared her usual
self. Another 'pull your socks up' chat ensued three days prior to
her announcing she was pregnant again.
Now,
not only was her work rate particularly slow, but her punctuality
was wanting.
She worked part time on Friday, Saturday & Sunday but booked all
her ante-natal appointments for Fridays. This was apparently the only
time her midwife was available. She would arrive at work at 9am, and
then leave at 10am for her appointment and not return until lunch.
At the time there were eight people working at various times, so her
absence at such short notice caused significant issues. Furthermore,
when she had time off due to sickness, she failed to produce a sick
note, maintaining that her doctor refused to until she had recovered!
She
was written to by her employer on numerous occasions but never responded
and even when disciplined failed to react.
After
yet another bout of sickness, she was asked to attend a 'return-to-work'
meeting. This was not a disciplinary hearing and was never described
as such. When questioned by her boss regarding her behaviour, she
simply sat smirking and produced a letter for her manager to read.
Although reluctant her boss finally agreed and left the office to
read this letter. On returning she told her employee that she did
not appreciate her accusatory tone and then sacked her!
In the
letter the employee made several allegations professing that she had
been discriminated against because of her sex and pregnancy. Her boss
had been pushed to the limit and on returning to the meeting was unable
to think rationally. But by dismissing her without following a procedure,
the damage had already been done.
The
employee as expected claimed unfair dismissal and discrimination.
With regard to the unfair dismissal the employer was guilty as charged
and acknowledged this. However they strongly denied any discrimination
or victimisation. Sadly, they were confronted with a real issue here
as they had stated that they never intended to dismiss her at the
meeting and it was the allegations towards them that pushed the boss
to do so. The tribunal considered the letter to be the reason for
her dismissal and she won.
TIP:
This above case proves how vital it is to not allow emotions to impede
decision making. Always stick to the correct procedures, even if it
pains you to do so!
Beating
recession and the credit crunch