BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[hugebrain]

Originally Posted by DaveB

Who is likely to be affected?

1. UK residents who are participating in the avoidance scheme described below.

Doesn't tax avoidance mean it was legal (otherwise it would be evasion). Looks like they blew their case apart right there!

[neilawuk]

dude69 you obviously havent got any idea how any of these schemes work. What do u mean its gone to the IOM never to be seen again, what are you talking about, what do u think has gone where? Maybe if you knew the mechanics of these schemes you would realise how they worked. I have invested all the money I have saved from HMRC into another investment product which, if I have to pay it back will have made me a nice profit even taking their 8% per annum interest into account....

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I have invested all the money I have saved from HMRC into another investment product which, if I have to pay it back will have made me a nice profit even taking their 8% per annum interest into account....

Sensible move, wish I'd done something similar instead of just sticking it in the BS.

[neilawuk]

donkey, to be honest I see it as highly unlikely the retrospection will be accepted. As per many experts opinions retrosepctivity sets a big precedent which in the current climate would be a very dangerous move for Gordon and HMRC. The costs involved in them trying to recoup monies could be prohibitive if they had to pursue every case.

What Im curious about is the term used in the BN66 "property companies". Property doesnt come into the equation so who is the target?

[dude69]

Originally Posted by neilawuk

dude69 you obviously havent got any idea how any of these schemes work. What do u mean its gone to the IOM never to be seen again, what are you talking about, what do u think has gone where?

The hefty fee you have paid to your scheme administrator.

That fee which has done you no good at all if HMRC come knocking.

If you 'earn' £100k and pay 15% fees, that's £15k gone forever.

If HMRC come after you for tax, you're going to have to pay not only the tax, but you're also out your £15k

The vast majority of the money paid by these schemes is indeed 'gone', as it does not offset UK taxation which you might be found to be liable for.

[dude69]

Originally Posted by hugebrain

Doesn't tax avoidance mean it was legal (otherwise it would be evasion). Looks like they blew their case apart right there!

No, a tax avoidance scheme is simply a scheme designed to reduce tax. Such a scheme may or may not be valid under UK law

Tax evasion is simply not paying tax at all just because you don't want to.

[malvolio]

Originally Posted by dude69

No, a tax avoidance scheme is simply a scheme designed to reduce tax. Such a scheme may or may not be valid under UK law

Tax evasion is simply not paying tax at all just because you don't want to.

No. Avoidance is reducing tax by any method not explicitly prohibited by statute. Evasion is doing it by any method that is prohibited by statute. Simple, really.

Snag is, the typical IOM scheme is prohibited by statue, except some people didn't spot the detail, or chose to either ignore or reinterpret it

[dude69]

Originally Posted by malvolio

No. Avoidance is reducing tax by any method not explicitly prohibited by statute. Evasion is doing it by any method that is prohibited by statute. Simple, really.

Snag is, the typical IOM scheme is prohibited by statue, except some people didn't spot the detail, or chose to either ignore or reinterpret it

well I guess the difference is that an avoidance scheme is one you THINK is legal.

[BrilloPad]

Originally Posted by DonkeyRhubarb

Up to now, no-one has mentioned the moral argument about tax avoidance, so I thought I'd get in first.

If you believe that contractors should pay the same tax as everyone else then you are obviously a better person than me. However, I haven't come across many contractors who share this view, and most people I know have taken one route or another to circumvert IR35.

In any case it is not a level playing field. Contractors may be highy paid but that is partly compensation for lack of security. Moreover, if companies didn't see the value in using contractors then they wouldn't engage them. It is a 2-way street. Companies are willing to pay more for skills and flexibility. In any case, rates are market driven and we all saw what happened after the dotcom bust. How many employees do you know who would take a 50% rate cut on the chin like some contractors I knew!

If you compare contractors with highly paid employees on a similar renumeration, then that's not a level playing field either. Employees don't have to stump up 12% uncapped NI.

You may think that some of the more aggressive schemes are a step too far but, before you get on your high horse, remember a large section of the public would probably take offence at how little tax you pay as well.

End of rant.

You talked earlier about keeping threads clean - this should have been a seperate thread. I did once start a morals of tax avoidance thread - Bradley took a huge kicking.

[BrilloPad]

Originally Posted by dude69

The hefty fee you have paid to your scheme administrator.

That fee which has done you no good at all if HMRC come knocking.

If you 'earn' £100k and pay 15% fees, that's £15k gone forever.

If HMRC come after you for tax, you're going to have to pay not only the tax, but you're also out your £15k

The vast majority of the money paid by these schemes is indeed 'gone', as it does not offset UK taxation which you might be found to be liable for.

montpelier fees are 10% - I also pay about £5k in tax/NI.

even if MTM lose the overall payout will be less than IR35. Admittedly I could do better than IR35 with a limited - MTM is a risk.