|
Post by scorpiodog on Jan 5, 2024 17:35:14 GMT
Thank you very much for the replies. Hopefully will not affect me too much. I am trying to sell a number of guitars for a very poorly friend so this has bumped up my ebay sales a fair bit. Doesn't sound like you need to worry then. HMRC might ask questions (but they're so understaffed they probably wont), just make sure you have sufficient documentation to prove the truth to them. Might be worthwhile asking your poorly friend to write you a note asking you to sell them on his behalf.
|
|
|
Post by scorpiodog on Jan 5, 2024 12:13:19 GMT
I only knew him from the things he used to post on this forum. He did a series of YT vids some time ago that he posted here and I enjoyed them very much.
I am, nonetheless, saddened to hear of his sudden death. RIP Phil.
Correction: he didn't post them here - I've just checked his account. Must've been Facebook.
|
|
|
Post by scorpiodog on Jan 5, 2024 11:38:31 GMT
The only thing that's changed is the reporting requirement by the selling platforms. The rules have broadly been the same ever since I have been in the accountancy profession (more than 50 years). There's a handy concept all accountants have to learn when studying, which HMRC have kindly codified here. That's the badges of trade, ie what factors come into play when deciding whether transactions constitute a trade or not. The mnemonic when I was studying was SO FIRM FAST: Subject matter Ownership period Frequency of transactions Improvements made to the goods between purchase and sale Reason for sale Motive for purchase and subsequent sale Finance source Acquisition date, reason and costs Similar Transactions comparison (I always think it's a bit of a cheat in a mnemonic for two initials to appear in one line, but there it is). Now this is a balance of probabilities thing, so just because you sell ten guitars in a week doesn't necessarily indicate a trade, but to sell one a week for a year might, particularly if you didn't play them for a while in between purchase and sale. But the motive is particularly key here. If you regularly buy guitars knowing they are less than market value with the main intention to flog them at a higher price, particularly if you do some work on them to enhance their value, then it's likely you are trading. If you ARE trading you have a responsibility a) to notify HMRC within three months of starting trading and b)if you make a profit, then you must self assess the income tax and report it to HMRC annually. I know a lot of us perform and are sometimes paid. Although that's broadly covered by the same rules as buying and selling instruments, there are some additional things HMRC tend to look at. In either case, you can deduct all sorts of expenses from the Gross Profit before you calculate the tax. In certain cases there may be Capital Gains Tax implications from buying and selling immensely expensive instruments, but the sale of most of our guitars would be covered under the general exemption for chattels. This is all very rushed (it's January - eek!) and generic. If you think there may be an issue for you, you should consult an accountant specialising in tax. You can often have an initial half hour consultation for free, and the accounant can give you specific advice relating to your own situation. By the way, full disclosure, I did not remember the mnemonic of the badges of trade from 50 years ago, I had to look it up (but I DID know where to look!)
|
|
|
Post by scorpiodog on Dec 20, 2023 16:46:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scorpiodog on Dec 15, 2023 11:12:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scorpiodog on Nov 27, 2023 13:27:08 GMT
Within limits, Brian. I think if you decide to collect wives because you love the one you've got, you're asking for trouble. A very good point. But I would get in at least as much trouble comparing my wife to a J45 - “slope shouldered dread”! When I was married, rather than that phrase describing my wife, it described my state of mind. She was more of a resonator, or maybe (if we can bring electric guitar pedals into the discussion) a tube screamer. When she was on the warpath it was all I could do to fender off.
|
|
|
Post by scorpiodog on Nov 27, 2023 12:22:38 GMT
I do and I’ve got one. I’m looking forward to hearing this new one. You can’t have too many of the things you love… Within limits, Brian. I think if you decide to collect wives because you love the one you've got, you're asking for trouble.
|
|
|
Post by scorpiodog on Nov 18, 2023 11:04:31 GMT
There is truly no deliverance…. Squeal like a pig if you must, but your cries won't be heard above the music of the b***o!
|
|
|
Post by scorpiodog on Nov 1, 2023 18:05:57 GMT
Watching the latest uploads from HB15 CoD I was surprised and ashamed to see myself doing a "Youtube wiggle" at the end of a song. Sorry. I blame the whisky. Keith As long as the guitar is the only thing that you wiggle…. Gosh Vinny, you were THERE, for goodness sake! Please pay more attention next time. Keith's moves are legendary!
|
|
|
Post by scorpiodog on Aug 31, 2023 9:34:19 GMT
I don't know if anyone on here, maybe scorpiodog could confirm? Robbie Keith sent you the page I would have done. As with so many things, it all depends. I can tell you that these VAT changes are supposed to have been done in order not to give Royal Mail a competitive advantage over other couriers. Yeah, right. Insert your own interpretation. BUt Orchid do appear to be correct to charge VAT on the delivery cost.
|
|
|
Post by scorpiodog on Aug 23, 2023 11:50:02 GMT
Your final question is easy: accountants are overheads. Just because accountants are overheads doesn't make all overheads accountants. Well, thank goodness for that, I say. In my business, accountants are not overheads. I will not be drawn into this. Whatever next, a meaningful discussion on depreciation and the various methods of calculation? The accruals concept? The benefits of market price valuations of assets. NO! NO! Get thee behind me, Brian.
|
|
|
Post by scorpiodog on Aug 23, 2023 8:48:16 GMT
I don't think anyone is arguing that bar staff shouldn't get paid, but rather pointing out that no one expects, or asks them to work for free because an event is for charity. As you rightly point out, bar staff is an overhead - but so are musicians.[/quote] I'm sorry I didn't make my point clear, Pete. I'm not saying that msuicians shouldn't be paid. I'm saying that some charity events budget for paid musicians, and some don't. If they do, then fine, and it's the musicians' choice to work for free for the benefit of the charity. If they don't, that's also fine as long as it's made clear from the outset, because it's still the musician's choice whether to play for free. It would be wrong, of course, for a musician to take on the engagement thinking he'll be paid, and then not, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here, and I'd be astonished if it happens very often if at all. The parallel between bar staff and musicians is an interesting one, and one I'm not sure holds completely. What is parallel, though, is that they can both choose to work or not (barring any contract of employment obligations on the bar staff's side). Please can we not get into a discussion about what constitutes an overhead? That sort of thing is the main reason I don't actively seek out the company of other accountants. I'd rather be a lion tamer, but there it is.
|
|
|
Post by scorpiodog on Aug 22, 2023 10:49:28 GMT
Gosh, this is a thorny subject, and one I've discussed with all sorts of people over the years. I've never really come to a proper conclusion in my head, but I have reconciled the various factors in my head so that I don't worry about it any more. In other words, I do what I think is right and don't get involved in arguments about whether I'm right or not in someone else's opinion. Here are some points I think are salient: 1) The payment of bar staff. A well run business should be a money making machine. No element in isolation will create this. So for the case in point, the bar staff should be paid. The pub takes money because the drinks are served. The customer doesn't help himself. The profit arises as a result of this transaction, so in the same way as the futile argument as to whether rates should be suspended for the duration of the event, or whether a proportion of the rent should be refunded by the landlord, the success of the event is achieved by generating money after overheads are paid. 2) A contribution by the landlord. This is less cut and dried, and, in my opinion, depends upon whether the business owner is instrumental in organising the event or whether he's just facilitating it after being approached. In the former case, he should contribute a proportion of his excess profits, in the latter it would be nice if he did. 3) Should the musicians be paid? I think this depends upon the musician's choices and nothing else. Frankly, if it's the musician's choice to perform for free, then it's nobody else's damn business. If they won't do it without payment, then that's fine too. One thing, though, for professional musicians (if they pay tax on their musician earnings) there can be a technical difference for tax purposes between working for free or working for pay and donating the money to the charity. Working for free doesn't generate taxable profit, but tax relief for charitable donations is given in a different way (through the Gift Aid system). So technically, the fee for the event should be included in turnover and thereby taxed and then relief claimed by the charity under Gift Aid. So the musician should donate a "net of tax" amount and use the tax element to pay his taxes in the usual way. 4) The point often made by people that all the excess should be contributed to the charity without costs being deducted is, in my opinion, fatuous. I haven't seen it in this thread, by the way, so I'm not aiming at any of the points made by anyone here. For some reason, some people belief that there's something special about a charity and that noone should take anything out of it except the beneficiaries. That's a great way to reduce the amount that is paid to beneficiaries. Generating money always involves activity. Some activity can be achieved for no cost, but much activity and often the most effective activity cannot. Consequently, by fundraising at cost, the net amount devolving to the good works of the charity is usually greater in total if everything is paid for than trying to rely on that given for free. Hence, when finding charitable organisations to support, one should examine their efficiency and not look at their level of overhead in isolation. I'm finding it difficult to explain succinctly what I mean here. Any road up, for myself, I'll play for free at a charity event if I feel I would like to and I often do. It's my choice. It gets me out there and people seem to enjoy it. If it raises funds for a good cause, that's great, but it's not why I do it. BUT, I don't earn my living from music. I'm not undercutting proper musicians, because these gigs aren't usually offered for a fee. I don't accept the argument that free music waters down the local music scene. In my experience, that particular old chesnut is usually stated by musicians who have an exaggerated sense of their self-worth. Cutting down the number of open mics and similar free performances won't generate more paid gigs for professionals. It will, however, stop all the experiential oportunities for people starting out. That's not good for anybody. Sorry, I wish I'd chosen a lower horse to get up on. Please accept this rant/ramble as my contribution to the thread. I wouldn't read it if I were you.
|
|
|
Post by scorpiodog on Aug 11, 2023 8:55:41 GMT
I have one that I won in a FFG and I like it. It's really pretty but I don't use it all the time, it's my "fancy" capo I think that might have been mine. I got it from andrewjw. Is it blue?
|
|
|
Post by scorpiodog on Aug 10, 2023 9:09:03 GMT
I have done, Robbie. But only once and it was done by the sound engineer at the venue. It was an SM57 going through the stage pa. But I'm not as exacting about my guitar sound as you are, nor do I like to sit still when performing. So on the one hand it sounded OK to me (and I do have a video where it also sounds OK to me) but it probably wouldn't suit you. I was so irritated by having to sit still that I had a pickup installed in the guitar the following week.
Here's the vid:
The quality of the filming is somewhat lacking, but, obviously, I wasn't behind the camera. There was no tripod. It was a good camera, not a phone.
|
|