Hmrc - ebay/airbnb/vinted etc new rules - 1st Jan 2024
- Thread starter 413x
- Start date
Are they your own items you're now selling, or items you bought to sell?
If the former then it doesn't come under the trading legislation anyway and that income is non-taxable.
Then you would just check with CGT. If the items are classed as a wasting chattel then they are CGT exempt and if they're a non-wasting chattel then you would pay some CGT if any single item (or items that form a collection) was over £6,000.
That's an issue though.
Who's to say these were possessions were not bought to sell? How do you prove this?
Its all a mess and no clear guidelines. And they cannot expect people to keep invoices or receipts from years gone by.
He mentioned he'd had some items for 15 years, thats not what you would class as stock items being used to carry on a trade. Also he can show that the sales aren't ongoing once items have been sold, ie: they aren't being bought again to resell.
There are guidelines, how clear there are comes under the general confusion tax law can take
Well, they can and tbf, if its something you know you are going to claim a relief on (like CGT relief) then yes, the onus is on you to keep the paperwork. And in today's digital times, thats easier than ever.
Ie: if you've bought property and spent X thousands of capital expenditure on doing it up, you'd be a fool not to keep those receipts for the time you're going to sell, which might be decades in the future.
Last edited:
What?He mentioned he'd had some items for 15 years, thats not what you would class as stock items being used to carry on a trade. Also he can show that the sales aren't ongoing once items have been sold, ie: they aren't being bought again to resell.
There are guidelines, how clear there are comes under the general confusion tax law can take
Well, they can and tbf, if its something you know you are going to claim a relief on (like CGT relief) then yes, the onus is on you to keep the paperwork. And in today's digital times, thats easier than ever.
Ie: if you've bought property and spent X thousands of capital expenditure on doing it up, you'd be a fool not to keep those receipts for the time you're going to sell, which might be decades in the future.
Im on about items that one might sell after years of ownership.
Why should they be expected to keep paperwork just incase they decided to have a clear out?
Who's to say that that's what they did? HMRC would just claim they are trading. How does one argue? And prove said claims?
It makes no sense.
Well, you don't, like I said selling your own wasting chattels are income and CGT exempt.
Again, I've explained how you can show it's you selling your own items and not carrying on a trade. If the HMRC enquired and you explain that, for them to dismiss that claim they'd have to have evidence that you were lying.
Yes. But HMRC don't care or listen when they think they're right.
We're getting nowhere
That's not true and I have successful appeals against HMRC decisions to prove it.
Fine, you continue worrying about something thats very unlikely to ever bother you, the rest of us will just get on with it
Last edited:
You've had success. Good for you.That's not true and I have successful appeals against HMRC decisions to prove it.
Fine, you continue worrying about something thats very unlikely to ever bother you, the rest of us will just get on with it
Plenty of people don't. And get destroyed by HMRC due to lack of evidence to argue against them.
Sigh
Go on then, show me where HMRC has destroyed people for selling their own items.
I didn't specify that reason did I?
Read what I said again.
No, but what's what we're talking about.
If the HMRC "destroyed" someone over a different issue entirely then thats not exactly relevant to our conversation.
If it was over a business matter, then there are obviously other obligations business owners have to do than Joe Public selling their own items.
So without any details of what these other events are its impossible to comment.
You're thinking with Logic and reasoning.
HMRC, are known to not understand basic logic and reasoning.
Don't call into that trap
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,396
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
You can always tell those who have dealt with HMRC in a professional capacity and those that know someone who got wrecked and was completely innocent of what HMRC "got them for"
This.
Given the appeal route for any decision HMRC makes culminates in a tax tribunal in front of judges, with several steps between which include independent (from the original decision maker) reviews and mediation, I just can’t see how that kind of statement would ever hold water.
If there was no evidence of wrong doing, it would get thrown out at every stage of the process.
Likewise all tax charges in dispute are also stood over meaning you don’t have to pay them until it’s settled except in some very specific circumstances. Interest obviously still accrues if it’s settled in HMRCs favour which it more than likely will be if they are willing to go all the way to the tribunal.
Read this:
and decide if you are carrying out a trade or not. The guidance above is a pretty easy read. It not just depends on the things being sold but what you do with the proceeds.
You need to look at all the ‘badges’ above and take a view.
Based on what you have said here, I’m a going to go with probably not but that most certainly isn’t legal advice.
If it’s not a trade, you do need to consider CGT. But that’s already been covered above. LITRG also have some good guidance on this aimed at ‘regular folk’.
This is perfect, thank you.
I'd say the collection would come under "Assets acquired for personal enjoyment".
Probably liable for a bit of CGT but won't be much.
Most of it is probably considered to be a wasting (limited life) chattel (possession) so is probably exempt from CGT.
IIRC if the usual expected life span is less than 50 years, it’s a wasting chattel. If something like a Rolex is usually considered to be a wasting chattel, I’d expect a games console and RC car to be also.
IIRC if the usual expected life span is less than 50 years, it’s a wasting chattel. If something like a Rolex is usually considered to be a wasting chattel, I’d expect a games console and RC car to be also.
You have a very rose tinted view of HMRC’s processes. Bad or prejudiced officers do exist in HMRC and can lead to bad decisions which are maintained through to tribunal. The most recent example is BGC Services Holdings LLP vs HMRC, where despite it being about £96mil and handled by a big 4 accountancy firm, HMRC apparently took a view, ignored the evidence and refused to back down from their pre-judged view. One comment from the decision reads:
Last edited: