• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Going umbrella after MVL

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Going umbrella after MVL

    Hi

    I MVL'd my LtdCo last year, in the expectation that I would no longer need it, as I'd hoped to get out of my industry and go and do something else. However, a role has come up that is too good to turn down, especially after I massively overspent on a building renovation project.

    I believe that I can't set up a new LtdCo as it's within two years of the liquidation. From the links on this site, I've seen there is some uncertainty over whether an umbrella would be ok for me.

    If it makes a difference, although I MVL'd last year, I haven't actually worked since June 2017. Is the two year period related to last worked date, or the date of liquidation?

    Is anyone able to shed some clarity on the situation, or point me in the direction of a definitive answer?

    Many thanks.

    #2
    IMO you are employed as an Umbrella client so I don't see how they can have a problem with it. The rule is to stop abusing the system and gaining an unfair tax advantage by closing the company and quickly re-opening another to abuse the tax situation again. By going brolly you aren't, you are shutting the company and then becoming an employee. It will be very difficult for them to argue and they are getting extra tax so can't see why they should.
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by ccrowe View Post
      Is the two year period related to last worked date, or the date of liquidation?
      Neither, the two-year period within the TAAR begins when the relevant distribution is made (there may be more than one).

      There's no absolute certainty in this area, but the I think you're at the low-risk end of the spectrum, providing you can evidence what you've said and that you do indeed use an umbrella, which is a form of employment (so not a "trade", and probably not an "activity" as intended by the TAAR). Opening another company would be a higher risk, certainly.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
        Neither, the two-year period within the TAAR begins when the relevant distribution is made (there may be more than one).

        There's no absolute certainty in this area, but the I think you're at the low-risk end of the spectrum, providing you can evidence what you've said and that you do indeed use an umbrella, which is a form of employment (so not a "trade", and probably not an "activity" as intended by the TAAR). Opening another company would be a higher risk, certainly.
        what is the actual risk though?
        If it's just to pay the tax advantage gained from the MVL but no fines/fraud/worse, then the risk may be worth it. I don't know as it's not my area, but I do like to understand the risks when maiking a decision.

        If the OP hasn't done this purely for the tax advantage then fraud seems unlikely, as it's a genuine change in circumstances. Of course the money paid to the MVL company would be lost, if the extra tax has to be paid.

        Might be worth a call to the company who did the MVL and ask them for an opinion.
        See You Next Tuesday

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Lance View Post
          what is the actual risk though
          This is essentially unanswerable since we know neither the probability nor the amount at risk, which could involve tax (the difference between a capital distribution, possibly after ER, and a dividend distribution), plus interest, plus penalties, speaking generally. Nevertheless, I think the risk to the OP is very low if they do as they describe. Still, it’s difficult to quantify. If they opened a new company, it would be higher (but also lower than the sort of deliberate phoenixing that the TiS was thought to be focused on), but again difficult to quantify. The problem is the legislation itself, which is very broadly drawn, and the lack of much guidance, together with HMRC’s tendency to change its mind and pursue something aggressively that was previously guided as unlikely.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Lance View Post
            If the OP hasn't done this purely for the tax advantage then fraud seems unlikely, as it's a genuine change in circumstances.
            The two year rule pretty much shifts the burden of proof onto the taxpayer to prove a genuine change in circumstances.

            HMRC could argue that OP knew all along he was going to blow all that money, that's not a change. How can OP prove that there's been a change here that he wasn't anticipating?

            This isn't like the people who become perms and then get made redundant 15 months later. That's a change they couldn't anticipate, and they can prove it. But 'I got a good offer' isn't a change in circumstances that will impress HMRC. 'Getting an offer' is what contractors do all the time.

            In my view the risk of starting a new Ltd would be pretty high in this case.

            But to OP's question, the risk of going brolly is probably very, very low. The risk of HMRC winning a case on this would be low. The risk of them even trying is probably even lower. They have bigger targets with better chances of winning. And losing this one would set a precedent that they probably wouldn't like, because then the answer to the next guy who asked your question would be, 'No risk.'

            If everyone knew that they could go brolly after MVL, with no risk at all, there would probably be more people going MVL, especially with IR35 reform coming in. Go MVL, get your stash out of the company, pay the brolly taxes for a couple years, since you might be chucked inside IR35 half the time anyway. Lots of people may do that, more may do so if they knew there was no risk to it. So HMRC probably won't want to set the precedent that shows there really is no risk.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by WordIsBond View Post
              <snip>

              If everyone knew that they could go brolly after MVL, with no risk at all, there would probably be more people going MVL, especially with IR35 reform coming in. Go MVL, get your stash out of the company, pay the brolly taxes for a couple years, since you might be chucked inside IR35 half the time anyway. Lots of people may do that, more may do so if they knew there was no risk to it. So HMRC probably won't want to set the precedent that shows there really is no risk.
              But could you do this mid-contract or on contract renewal at the same client?

              I suppose in many ways, HMRC would get want they want anyway. They know that fighting thousands of cases on an historical IR35 challenge would be difficult and time-consuming, with little chance of success, so by forcing many contractors onto a PAYE structure prospectively is a still a huge win for HMRC.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by WordIsBond View Post
                If everyone knew that they could go brolly after MVL, with no risk at all, there would probably be more people going MVL, especially with IR35 reform coming in.
                I think your final few words are critical here.

                For a lot of contractors, especially those with significant other as 50% shareholder, going umbrella would lead to a lot more tax (predominantly NICs) over 2+ years when compared to Ltd Co with low salary/high dividends. You'd need a pretty big war chest to outweigh the impact of that.

                However, yes, IR35 reforms could remove the option of outside IR35 contracting for some. Personally I doubt it we'll see a big upswing in MVLs, as I anticipate:
                - the higher skilled (hence higher earning) contractors will end up securing outside IR35 contracts, as they're more likely to control what/when/how they do their work.
                - the lower skilled (hence lower earning) contractors who may well end up with inside IR35 contracts, would unlikely have built up sufficient war chests to make an MVL viable. Remember dividends in basic rate suffer 7.5%, lower than the 10% on an MVL.

                Re the OP, there sadly aren't cast iron guarantees to many things these days, and your situation is one of them. However, I agree with most other posters that the risk for you is very low.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Thank you for all the replies. They are very useful.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Maslins View Post
                    I think your final few words are critical here.

                    For a lot of contractors, especially those with significant other as 50% shareholder, going umbrella would lead to a lot more tax (predominantly NICs) over 2+ years when compared to Ltd Co with low salary/high dividends. You'd need a pretty big war chest to outweigh the impact of that.

                    However, yes, IR35 reforms could remove the option of outside IR35 contracting for some. Personally I doubt it we'll see a big upswing in MVLs, as I anticipate:
                    - the higher skilled (hence higher earning) contractors will end up securing outside IR35 contracts, as they're more likely to control what/when/how they do their work.
                    - the lower skilled (hence lower earning) contractors who may well end up with inside IR35 contracts, would unlikely have built up sufficient war chests to make an MVL viable. Remember dividends in basic rate suffer 7.5%, lower than the 10% on an MVL.

                    Re the OP, there sadly aren't cast iron guarantees to many things these days, and your situation is one of them. However, I agree with most other posters that the risk for you is very low.
                    Are we saying that MVL might carry risks /may not apply if someone plans to close their Ltd and move to a brolly?

                    Having never looked into it, my uninformed assumption was always that as long as you didn't set up a new ltd (phoenix) this might not raise any questions.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X