+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Posts 11 to 20 of 65
  1. #11

    Contractor Among Contractors

    DotasScandal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,123
    Thanks (Given)
    130
    Thanks (Received)
    113
    Likes (Given)
    1334
    Likes (Received)
    359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMarkyMark View Post
    It seems to have set a precedence for the upcoming PS changes and possible retro grab.
    Correct. As I have alluded to here.

  2. #12
    eek
    eek is offline

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    21,691
    Thanks (Given)
    222
    Thanks (Received)
    1099
    Likes (Given)
    986
    Likes (Received)
    3316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DotasScandal View Post
    They are not capable of connecting these dots, and they simply don't care. The same logic was displayed when asked whether they'd make people bankrupt over APNs (even though it means these guys will go straight onto the dole) rather than accepting a reasonable payment plan that would allow the contractors to keep contracting (the answer was a resounding "YES, we'll make all of you bankrupt".)
    Standard debt recovery is based on getting what you can get now rather than possibly jam tomorrow. Especially if that jam tomorrow is from someone with previous form for cheating....

    Equally there is an extra incentive for HMRC to take their usual blunt approach. It's designed to discourage others trying similar techniques...

    Now I know you will continue to try and convince me that APNs are a forerunner of the other contractor attacks I just don't agree (heck I don't actually agree any of these attacks are directly aimed at contractors they are aimed at others using contractor like working methods to avoid tax).
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  3. #13

    Double Godlike!


    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    10,359
    Thanks (Given)
    754
    Thanks (Received)
    741
    Likes (Given)
    4919
    Likes (Received)
    2853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DotasScandal View Post
    Correct. As I have alluded to here.
    As I said earlier somewhere it (scheme) is something I chose not to get involved in.

    However, I didn't expect that they would do that, to me it is morally wrong to bankrupt people and change a law and then retrospectively grab.

    I don't see how anyone wouldn't consider it wrong, or not be worried by the kind of precedent it could set..

  4. #14

    I live on CUK

    SueEllen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    in the Park
    Posts
    25,515
    Thanks (Given)
    1012
    Thanks (Received)
    901
    Likes (Given)
    4137
    Likes (Received)
    3619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    Standard debt recovery is based on getting what you can get now rather than possibly jam tomorrow. Especially if that jam tomorrow is from someone with previous form for cheating....

    Equally there is an extra incentive for HMRC to take their usual blunt approach. It's designed to discourage others trying similar techniques...

    Now I know you will continue to try and convince me that APNs are a forerunner of the other contractor attacks I just don't agree (heck I don't actually agree any of these attacks are directly aimed at contractors they are aimed at others using contractor like working methods to avoid tax).
    Footballers and pop stars have been caught using schemes and made bankrupt. Unlike IT contractors they aren't considered by many to be intelligent enough to work out it wasn't a good idea.
    "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

  5. #15

    Double Godlike!


    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    10,359
    Thanks (Given)
    754
    Thanks (Received)
    741
    Likes (Given)
    4919
    Likes (Received)
    2853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SueEllen View Post
    Footballers and pop stars have been caught using schemes and made bankrupt. Unlike IT contractors they aren't considered by many to be intelligent enough to work out it wasn't a good idea.
    And................still nothing happening to the providers of such schemes.

    Strange

    They talk about a retro tax grab against PS contractors for example, but no problems for the PS body not paying NI and making them work that way.

  6. #16
    eek
    eek is offline

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    21,691
    Thanks (Given)
    222
    Thanks (Received)
    1099
    Likes (Given)
    986
    Likes (Received)
    3316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMarkyMark View Post
    As I said earlier somewhere it (scheme) is something I chose not to get involved in.

    However, I didn't expect that they would do that, to me it is morally wrong to bankrupt people and change a law and then retrospectively grab.

    I don't see how anyone wouldn't consider it wrong, or not be worried by the kind of precedent it could set..
    The retrospective grab is against a small group of people (see BP and others who post on the BN66 threads). What happened there is utterly unfair amd highly dubious but for anyone who joined a scheme from 2007 onwards I'm sorry, but I have zero sympathy...
    Last edited by eek; 6th March 2017 at 17:59.
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  7. #17

    Double Godlike!


    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    10,359
    Thanks (Given)
    754
    Thanks (Received)
    741
    Likes (Given)
    4919
    Likes (Received)
    2853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    The retrospective grab is against a small group of people (see BP and others who post on the BN66 threads). What happened there is utterly unfair amd highly dubious but for anyone who joined a scheme from 2007 onwards I'm sorry, but I have zero sympathy...
    I agree to a point, however as SE said a lot of others have suffered who are "less aware", (I knew I would get there )

    So, IMO, it is mis selling and should be treated as such.

  8. #18

    I live on CUK

    SueEllen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    in the Park
    Posts
    25,515
    Thanks (Given)
    1012
    Thanks (Received)
    901
    Likes (Given)
    4137
    Likes (Received)
    3619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMarkyMark View Post
    I agree to a point, however as SE said a lot of others have suffered who are "less aware", (I knew I would get there )

    So, IMO, it is mis selling and should be treated as such.
    Good term.

    Yeah I'm annoyed they don't go after the scheme providers as well.
    "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

  9. #19

    Contractor Among Contractors

    DotasScandal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,123
    Thanks (Given)
    130
    Thanks (Received)
    113
    Likes (Given)
    1334
    Likes (Received)
    359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    What happened there is utterly unfair amd highly dubious but for anyone who joined a scheme from 2007 onwards I'm sorry, but I have zero sympathy...
    Not interested in sympathy, as I have explained on these boards ad nauseam. Interested, however, in truth and in facts. Of which I will quote just two: 1/ there was nothing preventing HMRC from communicating to contractors who fell for the promoters' snakeoil that they disapproved. You know their cutesy little "tempted by tax avoidance" they started sending to everyone and their dog in 2016? They could have done this exactly back in 2006, but didn't. Why?
    2/ Prior to 2011, the concept of "disguised remuneration" didn't even exist. HMRC's attempt to say otherwise is pure revisionism. It's not me saying it, it's a renowned tax specialist not known for his tax avoidance sympathy.

  10. #20
    eek
    eek is offline

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    21,691
    Thanks (Given)
    222
    Thanks (Received)
    1099
    Likes (Given)
    986
    Likes (Received)
    3316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMarkyMark View Post
    I agree to a point, however as SE said a lot of others have suffered who are "less aware", (I knew I would get there )

    So, IMO, it is mis selling and should be treated as such.
    Actually less aware is not an excuse. They still let a salesman take advantage of their greed and put themselves in the situation. So you then get down to the question of is the issue a consumer issue (with the protection of innocents that implies) or a business issue (its up to you to get professional advice prior to signing something). And tax schemes have always fallen into the latter category rather than the former.

    True these schemes were being targeted at a different (far less / utter unsophisticated) market to the more sophisticated investor schemes used to target but that doesn't mean it becomes a consumer issue especially as most of the schemes came from a different jurisdiction.

    Oh and before DS has another dig unlike most here I do help the posters in the HMRC enquiry thread out - I seem to be the person who organises the PM access requests - my only issue is that I don't believe there is anything wrong with HMRC asking for the tax that should have been paid to be paid.... Now if you argued that the calculations are insane and unfair due to their insane assumptions I would agree with that.
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.