Budget gives HMRC power to raid bank accounts

[d000hg]

Subtle difference, the don't have to prove you owe the money they just need a suspicion of doubt that you might

Where did he say that?

[d000hg]

The thing about using registered tax avoidance schemes was the one I really didn't get. They're saying you will always pay your full tax and then you try to reclaim it? How do you know what your "full tax" would be, since even a 1-man Ltd has a whole range of non-avoidance measures for paying money out? Or does this apply to company profits rather than personal tax only so there is a "nominal profit" you can refer to?

[Old Greg]

And even though a limited company (or plc) can be used for tax avoidance , corporate structure can hardly be said to be a scheme!

I think, tractor, that there are people who are being caught through their scheme usage who are looking for cover by trying to show: that government tactics for recovering money from schemes (retrospective legislation, bank account raids, demands to pay up front before the day in court) could be used against contractors operating via a Ltd outside IR35; and that use of a scheme is really no different from any other mechanism to reduce tax liability.

[Old Greg]

The thing about using registered tax avoidance schemes was the one I really didn't get. They're saying you will always pay your full tax and then you try to reclaim it? How do you know what your "full tax" would be, since even a 1-man Ltd has a whole range of non-avoidance measures for paying money out? Or does this apply to company profits rather than personal tax only so there is a "nominal profit" you can refer to?

I presume (and I may be wrong) that it will be treated as personal income. Do people using DOTAS schemes use them personally or via a Ltd, or is there a mixture? If the former, I don't see how income could be treated any differently as there is no Ltd in existence.

[MicrosoftBob]

Where did he say that?

With the UK tax system you'd know that is always with the presumption of guilty until proven innocent, unlike other tax systems like say the Isle of Man which are the reverse

Couple that with not requiring a court order to be able to take your money, means they can take it at will based on them deciding you owe them money, they take it and if you disagree you have to take them to court

[tractor]

.

I think, tractor, that there are people who are being caught through their scheme usage who are looking for cover by trying to show: that government tactics for recovering money from schemes (retrospective legislation, bank account raids, demands to pay up front before the day in court) could be used against contractors operating via a Ltd outside IR35; and that use of a scheme is really no different from any other mechanism to reduce tax liability.

This was my worry that they may, without case law or legal precedent, be allowed to equate a simple corporate structure (without any associated offshore or other declared or undeclared tax avoidance scheme) as an avoidance mechanism in itself.

[AtW]

This is direct result of actions by tax evaders who pretend to be tax avoiders and use courts to delay the justice for as long as possible.

[vetran]

It was the power they witheld from HMRC when they merged, the Customs & excise man could do this AFAIR.

I predict a series of farces where HMRC bankrupt various people for no reason.

[d000hg]

With the UK tax system you'd know that is always with the presumption of guilty until proven innocent, unlike other tax systems like say the Isle of Man which are the reverse

So in other words, he didn't say that and it's just your opinion.

[MyUserName]

So at what point can they take the money?
When they think you owe it to the or when they convince a judge in a fair trial?