Murray Group decision 5th July
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Posts 11 to 20 of 100
  1. #11

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    WTT Consulting Ltd - London and online
    Posts
    1,604
    Thanks (Given)
    24
    Thanks (Received)
    284
    Likes (Given)
    68
    Likes (Received)
    533

    Default

    I have no issues with being disagreed with.

    The points raised by CDJ are valid and sensible and he is perfectly correct in saying that the devil is in the detail.

    Equally Mr Not Losing Any Sleep, makes a valid and sensible point.

    It's probably impossible to set out the implications of this case until we have seen why a decision was reached. Even then there will be disagreement as to what it all means.

    I do not assume to have a monopoly on the truth and would encourage everybody here to think for themselves.

  2. #12

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    98
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    5
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webberg View Post
    I have no issues with being disagreed with.

    The points raised by CDJ are valid and sensible and he is perfectly correct in saying that the devil is in the detail.

    Equally Mr Not Losing Any Sleep, makes a valid and sensible point.

    It's probably impossible to set out the implications of this case until we have seen why a decision was reached. Even then there will be disagreement as to what it all means.

    I do not assume to have a monopoly on the truth and would encourage everybody here to think for themselves.
    HMRC wins Rangers tax case ruling - BBC News

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0073.html
    Last edited by Not Losing Any Sleep; 5th July 2017 at 09:13.

  3. #13

    Should post faster


    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    168
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    11
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    33

    Default

    "Payment to the Principal Trust should have been subject to deduction of income tax under the PAYE Regulations"

    "an employer who pays emoluments or earnings to or on account of an employee is obliged to deduct tax in accordance with the PAYE Regulations."

  4. #14

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    377
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    6
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dylan View Post
    "Payment to the Principal Trust should have been subject to deduction of income tax under the PAYE Regulations"

    "an employer who pays emoluments or earnings to or on account of an employee is obliged to deduct tax in accordance with the PAYE Regulations."
    So who is now liable to pay the tax - the employer or the employee?

  5. #15

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    WTT Consulting Ltd - London and online
    Posts
    1,604
    Thanks (Given)
    24
    Thanks (Received)
    284
    Likes (Given)
    68
    Likes (Received)
    533

    Default

    On the face of it, good news.

    Lots of issues of detail and connections to be made. We will need to see the written judgement.

    It is certainly though in line with the strategy we have been following for close on 3 years now and which is already well advanced for our Big Group.

  6. #16

    Super poster

    Fred Bloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,743
    Thanks (Given)
    19
    Thanks (Received)
    84
    Likes (Given)
    73
    Likes (Received)
    280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dylan View Post
    "Payment to the Principal Trust should have been subject to deduction of income tax under the PAYE Regulations"

    "an employer who pays emoluments or earnings to or on account of an employee is obliged to deduct tax in accordance with the PAYE Regulations."
    Yes, but.............. (Webberg will correct me, I guess) your tax is your own personal issue so you remain liable for ensuring the right tax is paid and for actually paying it? After all, isn't this the basis on which the weasel worded tax advisers get out of having to cough up when their schemes don't work?

  7. #17

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    WTT Consulting Ltd - London and online
    Posts
    1,604
    Thanks (Given)
    24
    Thanks (Received)
    284
    Likes (Given)
    68
    Likes (Received)
    533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by helen7 View Post
    So who is now liable to pay the tax - the employer or the employee?
    The assessments at the heart of this case are PAYE demands on the employer.

  8. #18

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    WTT Consulting Ltd - London and online
    Posts
    1,604
    Thanks (Given)
    24
    Thanks (Received)
    284
    Likes (Given)
    68
    Likes (Received)
    533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
    Yes, but.............. (Webberg will correct me, I guess) your tax is your own personal issue so you remain liable for ensuring the right tax is paid and for actually paying it? After all, isn't this the basis on which the weasel worded tax advisers get out of having to cough up when their schemes don't work?
    It's a good point.

    Yes you are responsible for determining the correct amount of tax due.

    However the PAYE Regulations require employers to deduct tax from "emoluments". (The vivos judgement used "remuneration" but I'm taking these as being the same for now). That is an employer liability that can be transferred to employee only in certain circumstances.

    Arguably those circumstances changed when the disguised remuneration rules come in (Dec 2010) but before then, primary liability was with employer. Arguably post that date it remained with the employer.

    Lots of issues of detail here

  9. #19

    Should post faster


    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    168
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    11
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webberg View Post
    On the face of it, good news.

    Lots of issues of detail and connections to be made. We will need to see the written judgement.

    It is certainly though in line with the strategy we have been following for close on 3 years now and which is already well advanced for our Big Group.
    Written judgement available via the first link:

    http://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/doc...3-judgment.pdf
    http://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/doc...ss-summary.pdf

    Unless there will be something more in depth?

  10. #20

    Banned

    BrilloPad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Divorce Courts
    Posts
    97,109
    Thanks (Given)
    21858
    Thanks (Received)
    5563
    Likes (Given)
    21858
    Likes (Received)
    9606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webberg View Post
    On the face of it, good news.


    I thought HMRC won?

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.