Increasing clampdowns

[Chugnut]

With the predictable action of the Revenue now changing the law resulting from their defeat in the House of Lords over Arctic, where do the esteemed panel see this all ending? I'll clarify.

I am not an accountant, so I secure the services of one. By following their advice to legally structure my practices in the most tax efficient manner, I feel that these practices can be branded with the now electorate-friendly term of "tax avoidance" at any time. I think the government is keen to spin this term into the same arena as "tax evasion" in terms of the public perception. In the same way that 4x4 owners may now feel they are somewhat outcast and have to defend their choice of vehicle, any previous-legal but currently frowned upon tax avoidance mechanisms seem to almost carry the same social stigma.

I'm not talking about using schemes the disclosure rules introduced in 2004 were introduced to catch; these are accountancy-recommended practices. I would expect no area of tax avoidance to be exempt from scrutiny. The use of ESC16 is surely to be tightened soon and maybe inheritance tax avoidance is next? Let's face it, they're all legal practices at the moment, but heaven help anyone who follows their accountant's advice; you risk feeling like a criminal for your trouble.

[Old Greg]

It kind of depends where you sit. If you look at Philip Green's wife's non-domicile (Monaco) status and how it helps him avoid over a billion in tax, it makes me spit with the injustice. I, however, am just structuring my tax affairs (min. wage, divis up to higher rate backet, 33% of shares to Mrs OG and plan to use taper tax relief thingie) in such a way as to maixmise personal income while staying competitive. To some of my old NHS colleagues earning much less but paying their full whack of income tax and NI, I and my ilk probably cause a fair amount of annoyance.

If I was Brown, I would make changes to catch us for a similar portion of our personal income as employed people pay. In the meantime, let us make hay etc.

[Bluebird]

I'm not entirely sure that they can "tighten up" the legislation around the area in which they lost the Artic case.

The IR premise is that Mr Jones was the sole earner yet dividends were distributed to both him and his wife.

What happens if both Mr & Mrs Jones are "earners" ?

What is to stop Contractors / Agencies amending contracts so that "named resources" don't appear on contracts - who is to say who did the work then ?

And even if only Mr Jones gets dividends, providing he doesn't take out more that £38k [ including salary etc ], then there is no difference is there ?

[TheFaQQer]

Maybe a move to joint allowances for couples - married or in a civil partnership. Doesn't help those who don't / can't get a recognized relationship though.

[Burdock]

If I was Brown, I would make changes to catch us for a similar portion of our personal income as employed people pay. In the meantime, let us make hay etc.

But we don't get any of the benefits employed people get?!

[Old Greg]

But we don't get any of the benefits employed people get?!

Such as?

[pisces]

I don't see how they will be able to tax small buisnesses at PAYE levels, it would be criminal and would spell the end for many prospects of loads of people. Free enterprsie?? pfffft

Labour out.

[Burdock]

Such as?

sick pay, holidays, pension?

[Old Greg]

sick pay, holidays, pension?

These are all factored into the cost of employing someone: any employer will put a % markup on top of salary to cover these and employers' NI. We could pay ourselves pensions, and we put a % by for holidays and illnesses - and for serious illnesses we should have insurance. If we don't get these 'benefits', it's because we choose to take the money in different ways.

[Dark Black]

These are all factored into the cost of employing someone: any employer will put a % markup on top of salary to cover these and employers' NI. We could pay ourselves pensions, and we put a % by for holidays and illnesses - and for serious illnesses we should have insurance. If we don't get these 'benefits', it's because we choose to take the money in different ways.

Exactly, our choice. As a permie you don't have the choice of how to take the money... Part of the reason I went freelance is that I want total freedom on how I structure my financial affairs (that and the fact I dont have to work for clueless tossers - sorry I mean managers - any more. Work with them sometimes maybe, work for them.. no )