Originally posted by Arturo Bassick
View Post
- 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
-
Hard Brexit now!
#prayfornodeal -
Originally posted by sasguru View PostI get the point about retrospection, but I don't think it sets a precedent in this case since it was clearly unreasonable for people to assume they could pay nominal tax.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 sasguru View PostI get the point about retrospection, but I don't think it sets a precedent in this case since it was clearly unreasonable for people to assume they could pay nominal tax.
Retrospection here *will* set a precedent because that is they way the British legal system works.
Laws are drafted, the meannig is challenged in the courts and and the decisions made by the judicary direct future decisions on the same or similar issues. A decision that retrospection was acceptable would set a huge precendent for similar decisions in the future becasuue the entire system is based on precedent."Being nice costs nothing and sometimes gets you extra bacon" - Pondlife.Comment
-
Originally posted by sasguru View PostI get the point about retrospection, but I don't think it sets a precedent in this case since it was clearly unreasonable for people to assume they could pay nominal tax.
For consistency, shouldn't they be clobbered too?
There's even an advert at the top of this page claiming 80% retention. Take off the promoters 10% fee, and you're looking at 10% tax. I will admit it's not quite as piss taking as 3% but still way below the "fair share".Comment
-
Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View PostWhat about the thousands of people who are still doing it through loan schemes and the like?
For consistency, shouldn't they be clobbered too?
There's even an advert at the top of this page claiming 80% retention. Take off the promoters 10% fee, and you're looking at 10% tax. I will admit it's not quite as piss taking as 3% but still way below the "fair share".
If HMRC can't definitively then who can?Comment
-
I am against retrospection but I am equally against sharp legal eagles exploiting inevitable gaps in any complex legislation (like policeman getting off because the double yellow lines did not have a termination bar). There is a conflict here and I am not sure what the answer is
HMRC have been undeniably shoddy and slapdash, but I dont see how that affects the core principle. The core principle being that of the intent. The intent of the law, and the intent of the people who exploited the loopholes.
I was invited to join one of these schemes, and considered it for about 5 milliseconds. Having said that, I really feel for the dudes affected. The gut wrenching uncertainty and fear
it's horrible to contemplate
(\__/)
(>'.'<)
("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to WorkComment
-
Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View PostWhat about the thousands of people who are still doing it through loan schemes and the like?
For consistency, shouldn't they be clobbered too?
There's even an advert at the top of this page claiming 80% retention. Take off the promoters 10% fee, and you're looking at 10% tax. I will admit it's not quite as piss taking as 3% but still way below the "fair share".
Anyone that thought they could go on in perpetuity paying 3% really needs their bumps read......and a new accountant at the very least.“The period of the disintegration of the European Union has begun. And the first vessel to have departed is Britain”Comment
-
Originally posted by Pondlife View PostIf 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 a stroke of genius.
HMRC cannot take money from you that you don't have any more. (Just make sure you don't have a house or any fancy cars though...)Comment
-
Originally posted by EternalOptimist View PostI am against retrospection but I am equally against sharp legal eagles exploiting inevitable gaps in any complex legislation (like policeman getting off because the double yellow lines did not have a termination bar). There is a conflict here and I am not sure what the answer is
HMRC have been undeniably shoddy and slapdash, but I dont see how that affects the core principle. The core principle being that of the intent. The intent of the law, and the intent of the people who exploited the loopholes.I was invited to join one of these schemes, and considered it for about 5 milliseconds. Having said that, I really feel for the dudes affected. The gut wrenching uncertainty and fear
it's horrible to contemplate
Hard Brexit now!
#prayfornodealComment
-
HMRC haven't prosecuted or demanded penalties, they've just simply recalculated the tax as it would have been, with interest. In other words no-one has lost out. HMRC gets its money and the scheme members are no worse off than they would have been had they been through an umbrella. I think that's how a lot of people see it. It is bad though for people caught by this, though if anyone is responsible, in my view, it's the scheme managers. They know the risks, and the risk you lose everything. They don't communicate it. When I dodged the German equivalent of National Insurance, I knew the risk, the accountant told me what it was, and over the years yes the rules changed retrospectively on how they determine it, so retrospection on clarification isn't so unusual. But these scheme managers still go round peddling this stuff, and no one gets indignant, unbelievable.Last edited by BlasterBates; 30 August 2011, 10:13.I'm alright JackComment
- 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