This the Light Saber Duel from The Phantom Menace with Qui Gon Jin, Obi-Wan, and Darth Maul. I re-edited the footage to be one scene. Make Sure to see them all

Tax accounting software for a private limited company in the UK includes the using accounting software to produce the vat tax return and calculate the company net profit with the tax software calculating the outstanding tax liability and producing an automated corporation tax return.

Company Accounting Software.

All types of business accounting software produce a net taxable profit being the difference between sales income received and purchase expenses. The company accounts package often does not include capital and tax allowances on fixed assets which are essential elements to enable final tax accounting which the production of the tax liability.

Since tax allowances change then not all accounting packages cope well with this aspect as either it is ignored and any claims for capital allowances need to be input manually which often requires knowledge of the tax system. In any event many systems require the current year tax allowances to be input.

Tax accounting packages do exist where the current tax rates and rules issued by the taxation authority for a specific financial tax year. Such tax accounting software either has to include an upgrade service to incorporate the different tax rules that apply each year or a new package has to be purchased for each new financial year.

Every quality tax accounting software package should calculate the corporation tax liability which is one of the most significant costs of every business. If the accounting software does not produce an automated calculation of the tax liability then the tax due has to be entered manually usually by journal entry.

Manually entering the tax liability is a function frequently best dealt with by an accountant since the transaction also involves the final completion of the company accounts and potentially journal entries to account for distributions from the after tax profit and retained profits.

Vat Tax Return Software.

It would be unusual to find a company accounts package that did not automatically generate the quarterly figures for the vat return since almost all companies are vat registered.

The vast majority of companies have a sales turnover which exceeds the vat threshold limit at which vat registration is obligatory; most companies sales turnover exceeds this threshold at which point vat registration is mandatory.

The accounting software must be capable of satisfying the requirements of the taxation authority which in regard to a vat return includes the provision of an accounting audit trail of financial transactions.

Tax Software and CT600 Corporation Tax Return.

In the UK a private limited company has to complete a corporation tax return each financial year. Known as the CT600 companies with a sales turnover which qualifies as a small company can complete the CT600 short return.

Completing even the short version of the CT600 tax return is a specialist accountancy area which few non accountants are familiar with or find easy to deal with since it demands intimate knowledge of the tax system. Completing the corporation tax return can be a daunting task for a non accountant including several hours study of the accompanying notes. It is no simple task for many accountants who do not specialise as a tax accountant.

Most accounts packages do not include tax software encrypted within the packages to produce the corporation tax return but may include an online feed to assist in the submission of ther company tax return.

Using the right tax software the CT600 corporation tax return can be completed automatically.

To do so the company accounts package has to include all the relevant tax rules and rates applicable for fixed assets and the calculation of the tax liability. Both tax rates and the rules in which tax is collected are frequently changed. It is in fact unusual if the tax rules are not changed in some part every single year. Suitable tax software is essential to perform this annual process.

The tax accounting takes the tax rates and rules automating the work of a tax accountant to produce the tax liability. The term tax software indicates automation based upon data input which the computer package then processes to produce the desired output. Company tax software produces the tax requirements of the company including both the corporation tax liability and completion of the tax return.

Part 1 of 6 *** freedomwatchonfox.com *** The Tax Day version of Freedom Watch with guests Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Lew Rockwell, Michelle Muccio, Dr. Liam Fox, and Shelly Roche.

Tax elimination is my favorite type of tax planning because it permanently reduces taxes. A lot of tax planning is focused on just temporarily reducing taxes, this means you pay less tax today but will pay more in the future. In other words, the tax is just being deferred. Tax deferral has its place in a tax strategy but first I like to look for ways to eliminate tax and create permanent tax savings.

- How to Create Wealth with Tax Elimination Strategies -

Even greater than the tax savings from eliminating taxes – which are substantial – is the potential of what to do with those tax savings. Tax savings and wealth creation are two powerful tools that create amazing synergy when used together. Whenever I do wealth coaching with a client, one of the first steps is to create their tax strategy because the tax savings work to supercharge their wealth creation.

- More Tax Elimination Strategies -

Here is my C Corporation tax elimination tip in case you missed it:

Use a C Corporation’s initial tax brackets of 15% and 25%. If you are in an individual tax bracket of 25% or higher, then there could be an opportunity to eliminate taxes by shifting some of your income to a C Corporation.

What makes this strategy work is the shifting of income to a taxpayer (your C Corporation) in a lower tax bracket than you. What other taxpayers do you have in your tax strategy that are in lower tax brackets?

Here is one: Your Children!

- Get Your Children in the Game -

Of course, the IRS has special tax rules for children age 18 or younger (and in some cases age 23 or younger) but understanding these rules can provide opportunity to legally reduce your taxes.

These special rules tax unearned income received by your children at your tax rate. This means interest, dividends and other types of unearned income are taxed at the same rate as if you received them personally. In other words, no lower tax rate is available on this type of income.

However, these special tax rules do NOT apply to earned income. This means your children’s earned income is taxed at your children’s tax rates.

What is so exciting about using your children’s tax rates is that they can be even better than C Corporation tax rates! Your children’s tax rates start at 0%!

What Can Your Children Do For Your Business?

What tasks can your children do for your business?

Your answer to these questions will help you with your strategy to reduce your taxes.

Are you ready to use this tax elimination strategy to reduce your taxes?

Jackie and Dunlap discuss Washington’s proposed tax on cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food, health care reform, the next tea parties, and Little Debbie. www.redstateupdate.com

Chicago Tea Party – tax day 2009 www.foundingbloggers.com

Following an historic election, we take a moment to examine just what an Obama presidency will mean to the United States – what we have to look forward to, and how he will deal with our current financial crisis. And according Jim Davidson, some of the numbers just don’t add up.

One of Obama’s prime campaign planks has been his promise to mercilessly raise taxes on the “rich,” a group initially defined as those making more than $250,000 per year. This was later dropped to $200,000 per year, and more recently has been defined as those Americans making more than $150,000 annually.

Setting aside the precipitous downward slide in the definition of “rich,” there is ample reason to suspect that Obama’s tax changes portend much higher, if not confiscatory, taxes on the most productive Americans. Obama has strongly argued for higher taxes as a way of employing government to alter the pre-tax distribution of income, which he believes has concentrated too much of the gains from productivity in recent years in the hands of the very rich.

He seems to think that the ‘very rich’ are a closed caste of more or less fixed membership, which changes little from year-to-year. This figures in his concept of ‘fairness,’ which supposes that it is perfectly just to burden a small fraction of the population with a majority of the costs of running the Federal government. This was detailed in a New York Times article on “spreading the wealth” by David Leonhardt. He wrote of Obama:

“He would then pay for the cuts, at least in part, by raising taxes on the affluent to a point where they would eventually be slightly higher than they were under Clinton. For these upper-income families, the Tax Policy Center’s comparisons with McCain are even starker. McCain, by continuing the basic thrust of Bush’s tax policies and adding a few new wrinkles, would cut taxes for the top 0.1 percent of earners – those making an average of $9.1 million – by another $190,000 a year, on top of the Bush reductions. Obama would raise taxes on this top 0.1 percent by an average of $800,000 a year. ‘It’s hard not to look at that figure and be a little stunned. It would represent a huge tax increase on the wealthy families. But it’s also worth putting the number in some context. The bulk of Obama’s tax increases on the wealthy – about $500,000 of that $800,000 – would simply take away Bush’s tax cuts. The remaining $300,000 wouldn’t nearly reverse their pretax income gains in recent years. Since the mid-1990s, their inflation-adjusted pretax income has roughly doubled.’

“To put it another way, the wealthy have done so well over the past few decades, with their incomes soaring and tax rates plummeting, that Obama’s plan would not come close to erasing their gains. The same would be true of households making a few hundred thousand dollars a year (who have gotten smaller raises than the very rich but would also face smaller tax increases). As ambitious as Obama’s proposals might be, they would still leave the gap between the rich and everyone else far wider than it burdensome on the young entrepreneur who was making his first millions as it would on the aging plutocrat who actually had enjoyed the prosperity of the past-quarter century since Reagan cut marginal tax rates.”

An October 13 editorial in The Wall Street Journal clarifies the mysterious arithmetic of Obama’s sweeping claims to cut income taxes for millions who currently have no income tax liability and pay no taxes:

‘For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase ‘tax credit.’ Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

“- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to ‘make work pay’ that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

“- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

“- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

“- A ’savings’ tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

“- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

“- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

“- A ‘clean car’ tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

“Here’s the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be ‘refundable,’ which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer – a federal check – from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this ‘welfare,’ or in George McGovern’s 1972 campaign a ‘Demogrant.’ Mr. Obama’s genius is to call it a tax cut.

“The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

“The total annual expenditures on refundable ‘tax credits’ would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as ‘tax credits,’ the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.”

After all the sloppy definitions are parsed, one point remains clear. The top 5% of U.S. income earners, who presently pay 60.14% (2006 figures) of all income tax, are destined for a huge federal tax increase under Obama.

One of Obama’s specific proposals is to raise the capital gains and dividend taxes to 25%, which will sharply increase capital confiscation as increasing percentages of “gains” will reflect inflationary depreciation of the currency. In the U.S., an investor must pay tax on the difference between the sales price of an asset and it purchase price, with no adjustment for inflation. Consequently, when the tax rate and inflation are high, a large portion of the “capital gain” is illusory. Any asset that appreciates by less than the rate of inflation will result in its owner losing purchasing power and having to pay taxes on the illusory gains. At Obama’s higher tax rates, (he has suggested that capital gains and dividend taxes should be hiked to as much as 25%,) capital confiscation would result from modest levels of inflation.

And the Great Credit Crunch implies that inflation will be far higher than in recent experience.

Setting aside whether it is moral or equitable to force a small fraction of the population to essentially pay for the whole cost of government, much of which entails the shuffling of checks to purchase votes of various aggrieved groups, there is a bigger question. Can it be wise for the whole fiscal regime to stand on the shoulders of a small group, like a pyramid tottering on its point, so that any tribulation which undermines the prosperity of those who pay would promise to bankrupt the state?

It is a worthwhile question to ask if you have considerable assets. In light of the worldwide credit crunch, which has deflated assets of all kinds, the prospect of burgeoning prosperity at the magnitude required to enable one-in-20 Americans to become “Super Rich” benefactors of Big Government is vanishingly small. There won’t be enough rich people to fill the role assigned to them in Obama’s scheme. The result to be expected, in addition to confiscatory taxation, is a dramatic shortfall of revenues. This, in turn, implies surging deficits and deficit financing requirements that will rapidly swamp the capacity of the Treasury to borrow.

Source: The Danger Lurking Behind Obama’s Tax Policy

From 1967, the Beatles dream they are back in the time of Merry Olde England, and try to pay Ringo’s whopping tax bill with the aid of Robin Hood and that swingin’ hepcat, Little John!

Estate tax is a Federal tax levied on a decedent’s distribution of possessions to heirs identified by state law or will. Yet, the percentage of estates which are subject to the tax is very minuscule. The IRS reported that just over 2 percent of people who died in 2001 were subject to the estate tax.

When inaugurated, one of President Bush’s concerns was to phase out the estate tax, which resulted in the 2001 bill, reducing estate taxes. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 generated a $1.35 trillion tax cut for the wealthy. By 2009, estates exceeding $3.5 million will be taxed phase out completely by 2010. For this reason, some have called the 2001 tax cut the “Paris Hilton Benefit Act.” Yet, Congress’s 2011 decision, whether to continue taxing estates, has become a heated topic in Washington. By analyzing the pros and cons behind repealing the estate tax, as well as a short insight into the gift tax, a better understanding of favoring or neglecting estate tax may be established and clearly evaluated.

Abolishing the estate tax decreases government revenues over ten years by $745 billion after 2011. Over these 10 years, the government will also lose $225 billion of interest from these funds; the total loss to the government is estimated to be $1 trillion. This deficit is catastrophic because it affects not only federal debt, but the funding of services for U.S taxpayers. Thus, tax cuts for multimillion dollar estates places further financial stress on healthcare, education, local homeland security, and Social Security. Another incentive to act in opposition of the repeal involves charities and foundations; such foundations include universities, museums, and churches which benefit from donations and inheritances. This being said, many high-income individuals bypass the estate tax by donating a great deal to charitable groups and nonprofit organizations. Repealing the estate tax would reduce this drive. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the repeal of the estate tax would decrease charitable bequests by 16 to 28 percent.

Small businesses and family owned farms applaud the termination of the tax in order to be tax free when passing down the business to next generations. Another change hurting small businesses is that as the estate tax is phased out, the step-up in basis will disappear as well. The step-up basis is the readjustment, upon inheritance, of the value of an appreciated asset for tax purposes. This change in step-up basis can negatively affect small business owners and farmers because a considerable amount of their wealth is in business asset form.

While discussing matters of the estate tax, it is also important to recognize the estate tax’s brother, the gift tax. The purpose of the gift tax is simple: if gifts were made throughout the entirety of one’s life, it would be possible to escape the estate tax completely. Gift and estate taxes coincide because gift transfers can greatly impact estate taxes. An example of gift taxes influencing estate taxes involves unified transfer tax credits. This tax credit establishes the amount of wealth which can be transferred between parties without incurring tax consequences. The two types of credits include the first which is available for taxable gifts and the second is available for transfers by death. For Federal income tax purposes, the unified tax credit can be exhausted only once (excluding exceptions). This being said, if the unified tax credit is used for gift purposes, it ceases to exist for estate tax purposes and vice versa.

If the estate tax is repealed taxpayers would more than likely see a change in the tax system. For example, Canada repealed its estate tax system in 1971. Today, a Canadian resident is considered to have immediately disposed of his or her assets prior to death. Thus, estates are subject to triggering capital gains tax on such assets at death under Canadian income tax. Compared to the United States, Canada has a significant increase in its capital gains tax, totaling 38.5% tax rate. The reason for such a high capital gains tax rate could be because of the termination of the estate tax. As a result, the United States might see similar capital gains tax consequences if the estate tax is repealed.

Today the estate tax has formed into a moral argument because it moderates the expanding gap between the wealthy and the poor. Revenues from the tax would help present more opportunity for those not inheriting riches. Some politicians want to keep the tax in order to force the rich to pay, while others would like to repeal it to save certain groups (farmers, small businesses owners, etc.) from its hardships. If Congress does not take action on the estate tax in 2010, the tax is kept relevant on January 1, 2011 with $1million exemption and a 55 percent tax rate. However, economic and political conditions will dictate the projections of the estate tax come 2011. Regardless of the debate among politicians, if the estate tax is repealed, another tax will most likely take its place. These pros and cons illustrate the difficultness for the United States government to repeal or sustain the estate tax for the year 2011.

10 hours that shook Trafalgar square, when the country stood up to the government against the poll tax