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!
1. Totally unrealistic to assume you could get away with it (i.e. paying a nominal amount of tax)
2. Totally immoral and selfish, you do owe something to the rest of society, whether you like it or not.
3. If you tried it and didn't hedge the money you got it coming.
For once completely agree with HMRC, retrospective or not.
It appears to have been a slightly dubious attempt to flagrantly avoid paying a realistic level of Tax. The legality and morality of it relying lopsidedly on the twin, and rather fanciful notions, that there would never be any such thing as retrospective adjustments to it, and that the numbers of people involved would remain so small that they would never appear on Hector's radar.
Following the well-publicised failure of similar strategies, it was an act of purest optimism to imagine it would ever triumph in the long term, and lo and behold that optimism seems to have been misplaced.
All IMHO of course.
“The period of the disintegration of the European Union has begun. And the first vessel to have departed is Britain”
It appears to have been a slightly dubious attempt to flagrantly avoid paying a realistic level of Tax. The legality and morality of it relying lopsidedly on the twin, and rather fanciful notions, that there would never be any such thing as retrospective adjustments to it, and that the numbers of people involved would remain so small that they would never appear on Hector's radar.
Following the well-publicised failure of similar strategies, it was an act of purest optimism to imagine it would ever triumph in the long term, and lo and behold that optimism seems to have been misplaced.
Ps Have watched with amusement as you tax-dodgers have worked yourself into a lather of indignation on the main BN66 thread. Talk about group-think.
I didn't join in as that was your thread. But since you've come here, take the abuse you are due.
If the legislation is retrospective then it is quite simply wrong. I do not see how you can be guilty of something that was legal when you did it.
If my understanding is correct (and it often isn't) then the legislation was already in place and your case relies heavily on a misrepresentation designed to swerve said legislation.
If that is the case then it can only be regarded as your own fault and it is time to pay up, even if that bankrupts you.
I do feel that HMRC seem to be targeting freelancers unduly but that is how it is.
They seem very keen on chasing us for what is surely a pittance and yet seem happy to ignore non doms who seem to be doing similar things.
Is the gifting of shares to ones wife not what S660 is all about?
Just saying like.
where there's chaos, there's cash !
I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong!
1. Totally unrealistic to assume you could get away with it (i.e. paying a nominal amount of tax)
2. Totally immoral and selfish, you do owe something to the rest of society, whether you like it or not.
3. If you tried it and didn't hedge the money you got it coming.
For once completely agree with HMRC, retrospective or not.
It appears to have been a slightly dubious attempt to flagrantly avoid paying a realistic level of Tax. The legality and morality of it relying lopsidedly on the twin, and rather fanciful notions, that there would never be any such thing as retrospective adjustments to it, and that the numbers of people involved would remain so small that they would never appear on Hector's radar.
Following the well-publicised failure of similar strategies, it was an act of purest optimism to imagine it would ever triumph in the long term, and lo and behold that optimism seems to have been misplaced.
Comment