• 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!

“ I owe £180,000 in tax and I haven’t told my wife”

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

    #81
    Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
    Hmm. I do find a match with AtW however....
    Nah. Just make the scheme peddlers (and QC who gave the opinion) liable for unpaid tax if the schemes don't work.
    Sadly that doesn't actually generate enough money to pay the tax bill (HMRC have been there and already tried that).

    Why do you think S61O so panics everyone - it's designed to tell agencies (and end clients) that supply chain compliance is their issue and that the tax bill will be theirs if they don't do it.
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

    Comment


      #82
      Originally posted by eek View Post
      Why do you think S61O so panics everyone - it's designed to tell agencies (and end clients) that supply chain compliance is their issue and that the tax bill will be theirs if they don't do it.
      That's the only reasonable thing to come out of the whole sorry IR35 mess.
      "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
      - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

      Comment


        #83
        Originally posted by cojak View Post
        That's the only reasonable thing to come out of the whole sorry IR35 mess.
        Well IPSE now support a contractor levy on outside IR35 contracts so there is zero incentive to worry about IR35 - you may as well treat it as inside...
        merely at clientco for the entertainment

        Comment


          #84
          Originally posted by AtW View Post
          But that’s completely unfair!
          Unfair but legal. I seem to remember loan users saying that the unfairness of not paying taxes was irrelevant as long as it was legal.

          Comment


            #85
            Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
            Unfair but legal. I seem to remember loan users saying that the unfairness of not paying taxes was irrelevant as long as it was legal.
            Lord Clyde (Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue [1929]):-

            "No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

            Comment


              #86
              Originally posted by HoofHearted View Post
              Lord Clyde (Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue [1929]):-

              "No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"
              Exactly. So no complaints when Parliament and HMRC and being "unfair" or "immoral", when HMRC is putting the largest possible shovel into the stores of dodgy loan contractors. As long as it's legal, that's fine.

              Comment


                #87
                Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
                Unfair but legal. I seem to remember loan users saying that the unfairness of not paying taxes was irrelevant as long as it was legal.
                Two wrongs don't make a right.
                Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

                Comment


                  #88
                  Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
                  Two wrongs don't make a right.
                  I think it's more live by the sword, die by the sword. (Matthew 26:52)
                  merely at clientco for the entertainment

                  Comment


                    #89
                    Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
                    Two wrongs don't make a right.
                    They don't need to. The dodgy loan contractors have already said that wrong is irrelevant as long as it's legal.

                    Comment


                      #90
                      Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
                      Just make the scheme peddlers (and QC who gave the opinion) liable for unpaid tax if the schemes don't work.
                      Tax must be prepaid (pending all legal stages, 6 years minimum) or it’s treated as clear tax evasion and it’s jail time for the whole chain - including QCs who approved it.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X