I am preparing the accounts for a child minder who works from home. In her garden she used to have trees around it, but now she has got rid of these and had fences erected at a cost of £2030. She said it was a safeguarding issue, but she would have had the work done anyway. Can I claim at least part of the cost, or do you think best not to?
Hi Nicola
You beat me to it, was just going to mention W&E.
I wonder why trees are a safeguarding issue - must tell all the local schools to rip theirs out! Sorry - that one made me chuckle.
This one would normally cause a nice one for discussion but I fear there are too many regulars doing work instead of having fun in a debate just at the mo.
Issues that spring to mind
The fencing is around a privately owned property rather than a business. How to determine which parts of the fence are for private v business use, besides she has already admitted she would have got the work done anyway.
Have to think of the worst case - that you would need to prove to HMRC that there is no private use of the fence, or minimal use. Hard if not nigh on impossible, unless you get a half dead taxman, I would suggest.
If she moved her 'business' then the fence wouldnt go with her and she couldnt sell it separately from the house. Surely it enhances the value of her personal property (although if she has cut down some lovely trees that might be debatable - but for a different forum!). There surely would be a capital gains tax issue is she ever sold her home if she did claim any of this as business related.
Its like the posh garden shed debate - but worse (or simpler). It doesnt perform a function in the business - it merely provides the setting in which the business is carried out. (Much like if she built an extension to the house is the closest example I can suggest)
__________________
Joanne
Winner of Bookkeeper of the Year 2015, 2016 & 2017
Thoughts are my own/not to be regarded as official advice,which should be sought from a suitably qualified Accountant.
You should check out answers with reference to the legal position
I'm assuming that it is a safeguarding issue as the trees would not provide a secure perimeter. A young toddler would be able to get out for example. OFSTED do expect childminders and nurseries to have secure fencing and I have seen OFSTED reports where this is mentioned.
With the business being situated within a private residence I'm inclined to agree with Joanne. The capital allowances when selling the property is of main concern - together with a fence not being moveable.
But then -
If the fence is needed for personal safety, and within that I'd assume the safety of that includes children, I'm almost certain there is an exception.
The OFSTED point is interesting. But wouldn't OFSTED require a fence be put in place BEFORE any license, or whatever the setup is for a nursery, is granted?
If I were to claim this I'd be inclined to put some information into the white space to show I've not tried to hide anything from HMRC and that the fence is needed for safety and security reasons.
__________________
Johnny - Owner of an overly-active keyboard.
A man who can read, yet doesn't, is in no way wiser than a man who can't.
Personal security - usually to prevent people getting in rather than toddlers getting out, although I take your point (must admit to having a giggle thinking of the house being on the Serengeti and lions prowling! Especially with some of the 'orrible little blighters! How my mind wanders when Im busy!!!!!!!)
Be interested to know if said trees needed to be cut down for the purpose of the fence to be put up (of if just done at the same time for aesthetic reasons and therefore was all the cost 'necessary'), what exactly was up around the garden before (was it just trees), have OFSTED ruled (and why this wasnt sorted pre licence as Johnny states). Good point Julie.
My understanding is that normally fences are structures therefore no cap allowances, but this one might come under the special rules for personal security, but as some have tried and failed before and there is case law in place I would suggest more than just filling in the white space (sorry Johnny!) - indeed would go and find out what precedence out there that fits your circs, check the HMRC big books for any specifics for their special rules and/or even go so far as to get a ruling from HMRC IN WRITING before you take any chances.
__________________
Joanne
Winner of Bookkeeper of the Year 2015, 2016 & 2017
Thoughts are my own/not to be regarded as official advice,which should be sought from a suitably qualified Accountant.
You should check out answers with reference to the legal position
I can see a reasonable case to saying yes and no on this one.
To me it seems security is the primary meaning behind the exception, and safety being secondary to such.
In this case, there is an element of keeping children from escaping, and stopping perverts getting in. But then thinking along those lines, unless the fence is seven foot tall is it merely a decoration and wouldn't stand up to scrutiny?
There is further reading in CA22270.
-- Edited by abacus12345 on Tuesday 17th of January 2017 09:47:13 PM
-- Edited by abacus12345 on Tuesday 17th of January 2017 09:48:54 PM
__________________
Johnny - Owner of an overly-active keyboard.
A man who can read, yet doesn't, is in no way wiser than a man who can't.
ARGH - I types a long reply & accidentally deleted it.
Below is from OFSTED guidance. So it appears that premises can be registered without secure outdoor play areas, but the childminder needs to demonstrate how they will provide those facilities in line with the EYFS curriculum. To be honest most parents would not consider using a provider without a secure outdoor play area and it could mean the difference between a Satisfactory and a Good/Outstanding OFSTED rating.
74. During the registration visit, the inspector must be satisfied that the applicant has identified any risks associated with the premises and equipment, and knows what they need to do to reduce or eliminate these risks. This also applies to areas that are out of bounds, but where children could access them, such as bedrooms. If the applicant has not covered all relevant risks and identified steps to deal with them, then the inspector must record this in their evidence and will normally recommend that registration is refused. 75. The inspector must consider the impact on children relating to: available space for each child (and the applicants assessment of the maximum number of children to be cared for) how space will be organised to meet the childrens learning, development and welfare needs heating, ventilation, natural light and the general state of repair and cleanliness access to outdoor play (not necessarily on the premises), including the arrangements for outdoor play where there is no dedicated outdoor space on the premises whether there are suitable and sufficient toilet and nappy-changing facilities whether arrangements for settings sharing facilities such as the kitchen or toilets with other users of the premises are suitable for ensuring the safety of the children. 76. It is not necessary for the applicant to have a full range of equipment at the time of the visit. However, they must be able to demonstrate how they will obtain sufficient equipment to meet the needs of the children they may care for and the inspector must record this in their registration visit evidence.
However I have since found a specific reference to fencing in the guidance produced by the NCMA who have an agreement with HMRC about the expenses childminders can claim. It says childminders can claim for fencing and gates needed to make the garden safe - if you would not normally need the fencing or gates in place and OFSTED require it to be in place before registration.
It also mentions claiming for Safety Alterations as required by OFSTED after an inspection.
-- Edited by pictures on Wednesday 18th of January 2017 09:59:47 AM
