+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10
Posts 91 to 100 of 100
  1. #91

    TripleIronDad

    BrilloPad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    93,291
    Thanks (Given)
    16954
    Thanks (Received)
    4439
    Likes (Given)
    16954
    Likes (Received)
    7940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jbryce View Post
    So, for the sake of my sanity,...

    I worked for ClientCo who, via a tortuous route, saw X cash deposited in my account.
    Who is liable for the tax?
    Me as the Employee?
    ClientCo as the Employer?
    The loan company? (who didn't even ask me to sign loan documents until after payments were made)

    Or - are we all liable?
    It could be employer or loan company. However it depends on the scheme.

    A bigger concern is the loan company asking for their money back.

    MP already asked for 10% back.
    We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

  2. #92

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,819
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    39
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iliketax View Post
    Sure.

    1. HMRC may not be get income tax from the borrower if the employer should have operated PAYE. But I don't do that for a living.
    2. The decision has no practical impact for the current disguised remuneration rules or for the expected April 2019 rules.
    Thanks - so now the dust is settling, it's looking like the landscape (for contractors) is much the same as it was before the judgement. Not much better, not much worse.

  3. #93

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,819
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    39
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrilloPad View Post
    It could be employer or loan company. However it depends on the scheme.

    A bigger concern is the loan company asking for their money back.

    MP already asked for 10% back.
    Is that really a bigger concern. I realise it may be concerning to many people, but in a practical sense, should people be that worried.

    Won't the Limitation Act mean that the debt is unenforceable - which is kind of HMRC's point about these being "loans".

  4. #94
    eek
    eek is online now

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    21,593
    Thanks (Given)
    216
    Thanks (Received)
    1075
    Likes (Given)
    967
    Likes (Received)
    3258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by centurian View Post
    Is that really a bigger concern. I realise it may be concerning to many people, but in a practical sense, should people be that worried.

    Won't the Limitation Act mean that the debt is unenforceable - which is kind of HMRC's point about these being "loans".
    I can't find the link but me and BP discussed this a short while ago and the limitation act kicks in surprisingly late to the extent that its probably not started in many cases...
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  5. #95
    ASB
    ASB is offline

    Godlike


    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    5,419
    Thanks (Given)
    49
    Thanks (Received)
    87
    Likes (Given)
    556
    Likes (Received)
    205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    I can't find the link but me and BP discussed this a short while ago and the limitation act kicks in surprisingly late to the extent that its probably not started in many cases...
    I think - but am not certain - that limitation clock only starts after an attempt is made to get payment. I.e. the event which triggers the debt.

    This is assuming there is no date for repayment and there is an "on demand" provision.

  6. #96

    TripleIronDad

    BrilloPad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    93,291
    Thanks (Given)
    16954
    Thanks (Received)
    4439
    Likes (Given)
    16954
    Likes (Received)
    7940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by centurian View Post
    Is that really a bigger concern. I realise it may be concerning to many people, but in a practical sense, should people be that worried.

    Won't the Limitation Act mean that the debt is unenforceable - which is kind of HMRC's point about these being "loans".
    I suppose you can fight all the way to the Supreme court and get the loan declared a sham.
    We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

  7. #97

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    437
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    28
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrilloPad View Post
    I suppose you can fight all the way to the Supreme court and get the loan declared a sham.
    HMRC wants it to be a sham!
    No wait, they want the loan to be real!
    Ah, no probs - it can be a sham and real at the same time.

  8. #98

    TripleIronDad

    BrilloPad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    93,291
    Thanks (Given)
    16954
    Thanks (Received)
    4439
    Likes (Given)
    16954
    Likes (Received)
    7940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jbryce View Post
    HMRC wants it to be a sham!
    No wait, they want the loan to be real!
    Ah, no probs - it can be a sham and real at the same time.
    HMRC can instruct their puppet MPs to make it so. The courts already confirmed HMRC can make any law they want to.
    We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

  9. #99

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,819
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    39
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    I can't find the link but me and BP discussed this a short while ago and the limitation act kicks in surprisingly late to the extent that its probably not started in many cases...
    Yeah, I see the point...

  10. #100

    Super poster

    Fred Bloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,512
    Thanks (Given)
    4
    Thanks (Received)
    60
    Likes (Given)
    32
    Likes (Received)
    208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jbryce View Post
    HMRC wants it to be a sham!
    No wait, they want the loan to be real!
    Ah, no probs - it can be a sham and real at the same time.
    But this is nothing new is it? Intermediaries legislation charges you corporation tax and VAT like a business. And NICs as an employer/employee too. I'm afraid the guys at HMRC and HMG get to make up whatever rules they like. Nothing new in that at all.
    Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
    Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.

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.