Maybe BolshieBastard can come along and give us his impartial opinions on the fairness of it all?
- 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!
BN66 - your opinions wanted
Collapse
X
-
“The period of the disintegration of the European Union has begun. And the first vessel to have departed is Britain” -
Originally posted by sasguru View PostI disagree. The law is not simply about the "letter of the law", but its intention, and it is childish and immature to assume it is.
What if a future Government via HMRC says that it has always been the intention of the law to tax all income no matter how received as earnings and we are back dating it to the year dot.Just saying like.
where there's chaos, there's cash !
I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong!
Lowering the tone since 1963Comment
-
Any scheme offering a way of paying very little tax on earnings in the UK while you are resident in the UK is going to be suspect.
It's easy to say with hindsight that scheme users should have been putting the extra cash away just in case it went wrong, but I'm sure the providers were very persuasive at the time about how legitimate their schemes were and how reliable the legal opinions obtained were.
Caveat Emptor, If it sounds to good to be true, etc, etc.
Having said that, HMRC new about these schemes from the outset, could have closed them down quickly and easily at any point in the last 7(?) years and made provision to prevent similar schemes being created with very little fuss or consequences. What they have decided to do by introducing retrospection with BN66 is far out of proportion to the problem ( as they see it ) and has huge ramifications for everyone, not just the original scheme users.
Ultimately my view is that if you dont want to pay UK taxes then don't live in the UK, but I do support the legal fight being made because of the wider implications of retrospection for the rest of us."Being nice costs nothing and sometimes gets you extra bacon" - Pondlife.Comment
-
Originally posted by Arturo Bassick View PostThe intention of the law must be explicit in the letter of the law otherwise it is not the law.
What if a future Government via HMRC says that it has always been the intention of the law to tax all income no matter how received as earnings and we are back dating it to the year dot.
In the case of BN66, the law has judged that it was unrealistic of people to believe they could pay nominal tax and has agreed to the retrospectiveness of retrieval.
But I doubt they would in the scenario above since it would be unreasonable
And I guess the vast majority of the general public would agree.Hard Brexit now!
#prayfornodealComment
-
Originally posted by sasguru View PostI disagree. The law is not simply about the "letter of the law", but its intention, and it is childish and immature to assume it is.Comment
-
Originally posted by pacharan View PostNonsense. If that were the case there would be no such thing as loopholes.
If it was that deterministic we could abolish lawyers and have a computer program interpreting the law.
Which is obviously how some naive IT geeks saw it.Hard Brexit now!
#prayfornodealComment
-
If you've never physically been to IoM/Jersey to work, then trying to claim taxation there is pushing your luck IMHO.
To take such a risk and then to have spent the gains is crass stupidity.Comment
-
Oh crap, I am going to agree with Pacharan.
I understand what SAS and you others are saying, but every loophole that has been exploited has still been a loophole. If what you guys are supporting were the case then each and every one should have been closed and retrospective taxes collected on those who knowingly exploited them.
Retrospection is wrong.
Would it be unreasonable of HMRC to explain that the intent of IR35 was to tax all freelancers as though they were employees and modify the law accordingly?Just saying like.
where there's chaos, there's cash !
I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong!
Lowering the tone since 1963Comment
-
Originally posted by Pondlife View PostTo take such a risk and then to have spent the gains is crass stupidity.
So he's not fussed.Hard Brexit now!
#prayfornodealComment
-
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/it-strat...-chaos-2085429
However, the government has insisted that the purpose of IR35 is to close a tax loophole.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment