HMRC fail again... HMRC fail again...
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Posts 1 to 10 of 38
  1. #1

    Still gathering requirements...

    TheInvoicer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    66

  2. #2

    Fingers like lightning

    BlueSharp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    776

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheInvoicer View Post

    So a little bit of making sure you run your business correctly and some legal support is enough to keep you outside. Who would have thought? Take note all those switching inside ir35 as that acceptance of an inside position could be just the evidence required to win backdated tax.

  3. #3

    Some things in Moderation

    cojak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Look to your right...
    Posts
    19,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueSharp View Post
    So a little bit of making sure you run your business correctly and some legal support is enough to keep you outside. Who would have thought? Take note all those switching inside ir35 as that acceptance of an inside position could be just the evidence required to win backdated tax.
    And all those newbies whinging about losing money when they get terminated early also take note...

  4. #4

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueSharp View Post
    So a little bit of making sure you run your business correctly and some legal support is enough to keep you outside. Who would have thought? Take note all those switching inside ir35 as that acceptance of an inside position could be just the evidence required to win backdated tax.
    From these boards, I've not seen much evidence of many people "switching inside IR35", or even thinking of doing so. Have you seen otherwise?

  5. #5

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paralytic View Post
    From these boards, I've not seen much evidence of many people "switching inside IR35", or even thinking of doing so. Have you seen otherwise?
    Quiet a lot of us considering our options and quiet a number saying they have, or will close their companies for perm or umbrella. Amazed you haven't noticed.

  6. #6

    Fingers like lightning


    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    641

    Default

    Two queries ref RALC's now depleted bank account;

    1. Am not sure by Dave Chaplin's presence, if RALC was a member of IPSE, and so should have had legal support paid for?
    2. But even if he did not, can I ask what the rules are if the accuser (HMRC) loses and if they should then pay the defendant's legal costs? I thought the HMRC should cough up, no?

    But, well done to all concerned. Again an illustration of HMRC's duplicity about just what it will and will not stand by in terms of the CEST output. It really is disgusting.

    Am very disappointed by the HMRC right now.

  7. #7

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simes View Post
    Two queries ref RALC's now depleted bank account;

    1. Am not sure by Dave Chaplin's presence, if RALC was a member of IPSE, and so should have had legal support paid for?
    2. But even if he did not, can I ask what the rules are if the accuser (HMRC) loses and if they should then pay the defendant's legal costs? I thought the HMRC should cough up, no?

    But, well done to all concerned. Again an illustration of HMRC's duplicity about just what it will and will not stand by in terms of the CEST output. It really is disgusting.

    Am very disappointed by the HMRC right now.
    On reading the article I took a presumption that he didn't have IPSE membership or any form of tax investigation insurance and was having to pay the legal costs himself. Hence the hit on the company.

  8. #8

    Fingers like lightning


    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    641

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dx4100 View Post
    On reading the article I took a presumption that he didn't have IPSE membership or any form of tax investigation insurance and was having to pay the legal costs himself. Hence the hit on the company.
    Me too. But even so, does not the HMRC pay the costs of the defendant?

  9. #9

    Super poster

    ladymuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simes View Post
    Two queries ref RALC's now depleted bank account;

    1. Am not sure by Dave Chaplin's presence, if RALC was a member of IPSE, and so should have had legal support paid for?
    2. But even if he did not, can I ask what the rules are if the accuser (HMRC) loses and if they should then pay the defendant's legal costs? I thought the HMRC should cough up, no?

    But, well done to all concerned. Again an illustration of HMRC's duplicity about just what it will and will not stand by in terms of the CEST output. It really is disgusting.

    Am very disappointed by the HMRC right now.
    I think the accuser only pays the defender's costs if the court orders them to do so

    IANAL

  10. #10

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simes View Post
    Me too. But even so, does not the HMRC pay the costs of the defendant?
    I think its really rare for costs to be awarded at tribunal...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •