• 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!

Whoa - IR20 again

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

    Whoa - IR20 again

    Tax exiles may have to pay back taxes after ruling

    Apologies if this mirrors Scooter's BN66 thread - didn't see it until after posting this.

    So let me get this straight. I would have thought most personal taxation and certainly most company and corporate taxation is open to interpretation. HMRC guidelines guide us (and accountancy) as to what interpretation is and has for many years been broadly considered acceptable by HMRC.

    This latest ruling by 3 judges if not over turned on appeal, paves the way for most individuals and companies to have their tax affairs to be re-interpreted in favour of the HMRC and applied retrospectively.

    Presumably HMRC (and Gov't therefore) can and will arbitrarily decide who's tax guidance can be re-interpreted.

    I say, let's have as a priority any tax concessions previously enjoyed by judiciary also re-interpreted in favour of HMRC and have that retrospectively applied as well. It's only fair after all.

    I can't think of a more efficient way to bring legal clarity to this.
    Last edited by BobTheCrate; 18 February 2010, 16:57.

    #2
    Perhaps not quite as far reaching as maybe appears.

    Earnings from business activities are covered in the DTA's between European countries and the US, and are exempt from being taxed twice. Employment income is also exempt. Only divis and interest would be subject to a top up.

    This will mainly affect exiles in countries with which there is no agreement i.e. Seychelles Cayman Islands, and so on.

    I've been tax resident in several countries for years.

    Even if they were to apply this ruling to me (highly unlikely), it would have no effect in spite of earnings in several European countries including Switzerland.

    The group that will get hit hard would be the Middle East "tax free" contractors.
    Last edited by BlasterBates; 18 February 2010, 17:02.
    I'm alright Jack

    Comment


      #3
      This case points out the importance of breaking ties with the UK
      The gentleman in question still had a very large property in the UK in which he was the main resident
      Coffee's for closers

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by BobTheCrate View Post
        Tax exiles may have to pay back taxes after ruling

        Apologies if this mirrors Scooter's BN66 thread - didn't see it until after posting this.

        So let me get this straight. I would have thought most personal taxation and certainly most company and corporate taxation is open to interpretation. HMRC guidelines guide us (and accountancy) as to what interpretation is and has for many years been broadly considered acceptable by HMRC.

        This latest ruling by 3 judges if not over turned on appeal, paves the way for most individuals and companies to have their tax affairs to be re-interpreted in favour of the HMRC and applied retrospectively.

        Presumably HMRC (and Gov't therefore) can and will arbitrarily decide who's tax guidance can be re-interpreted.

        I say, let's have as a priority any tax concessions previously enjoyed by judiciary also re-interpreted in favour of HMRC and have that retrospectively applied as well. It's only fair after all.

        I can't think of a more efficient way to bring legal clarity to this.
        Exactly. People who think they have nothing to fear as BN66 doesnt affect them are missing the wider implication of these two decisions if, appeals against HMRC are not successful.
        I couldn't give two fornicators! Yes, really!

        Comment


          #5
          I have a suggestion - Destroy current HMRC policy (including the morons who work there) rip it all up and start again.

          Emphasise the need for all to contribute to the best of their ability for the benefit of society as a whole. Find a way for people to want to contribute.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
            This will mainly affect exiles in countries with which there is no agreement i.e. Seychelles Cayman Islands, and so on.
            But this ruling is as much to do with tax law re-interpretation as it is about tax exiles.

            The only difference is 'who' decides who's tax concessions should be "re-interpreted". Maybe the criteria will be, "whoever we think is a Tory Toff".

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by BobTheCrate View Post
              But this ruling is as much to do with tax law re-interpretation as it is about tax exiles.

              The only difference is 'who' decides who's tax concessions should be "re-interpreted". Maybe the criteria will be, "whoever we think is a Tory Toff".
              I was referring to that ruling. I don't see HMRC have got anywhere with IR35, and I don't envisage that either. In other words yes they'll go after the tax avoidance and they'll probably start getting trust funds. But I don't see this extending to Ltd's even if you operate in different countries even as long as you really do business there.
              Last edited by BlasterBates; 18 February 2010, 18:13.
              I'm alright Jack

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by BobTheCrate View Post
                But this ruling is as much to do with tax law re-interpretation as it is about tax exiles.

                The only difference is 'who' decides who's tax concessions should be "re-interpreted". Maybe the criteria will be, "whoever we think is a Tory Toff".
                You pissing in the wind mate. Too many people just dont appreciate the implications here. Or at least they wont until a brown envelope from HMRC lands on their doorstep.

                IIRC, the case you mentioned was for someone who had stayed out of the UK and didnt reside here for more than the statutory 90 or 91 days. This has previously satisfied the non dom criteria. However, it now appears HMRC and the courts have interpreted legislation differently and claim that since he has a property here, he's not non dom ergo, change in interpretation to suit HMRC.
                I couldn't give two fornicators! Yes, really!

                Comment


                  #9
                  I wonder if that plane crash in Austin is a tax protest too?

                  Bloomberg are saying that the building is home to the septic Hectors.
                  How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

                  Follow me on Twitter - LinkedIn Profile - The HAB blog - New Blog: Mad Cameron
                  Xeno points: +5 - Asperger rating: 36 - Paranoid Schizophrenic rating: 44%

                  "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to high office" - Aesop

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by BolshieBastard View Post
                    IIRC, the case you mentioned was for someone who had stayed out of the UK and didnt reside here for more than the statutory 90 or 91 days. This has previously satisfied the non dom criteria. However, it now appears HMRC and the courts have interpreted legislation differently and claim that since he has a property here, he's not non dom ergo, change in interpretation to suit HMRC.
                    As I said in my post, the courts came to the conclusion as he still had substantial ties to the UK.
                    the 91 days is only 1 aspect of the non dom criteria
                    Coffee's for closers

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X