Murray Group decision 5th July
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Posts 21 to 30 of 100
  1. #21

    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 BrilloPad View Post


    I thought HMRC won?
    You ever heard of the phrase "pyrrhic victory"

  2. #22

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    13
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default Wishful thinking

    Bit hopeful I know ..but ...

    I have Notice of Assessments for 2011/12 and 12/13. Does this ruling place the burden of paying applicable tax on the employer and not the employee? If the umbrella company no longer exists can the burden be legally passed to the employee? What would this mean for the 2019 legislation?

  3. #23

    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 Dylan View Post
    You ever heard of the phrase "pyrrhic victory"
    Yes. Why is this a pyrrhic victory?

  4. #24

    Contractor Among Contractors

    DotasScandal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,125
    Thanks (Given)
    131
    Thanks (Received)
    114
    Likes (Given)
    1341
    Likes (Received)
    360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrilloPad View Post
    Yes. Why is this a pyrrhic victory?
    Presumably because the liability falls on the employer, not the employee. HMRC is entitled to collection from the employer, but as the employer and the employer's money are gone, there is nothing to collect.
    (simplified)

  5. #25

    Should post faster


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

    Default

    I'm not a laywer but look forward to hearing from my legal representation in due course.

    My very simple interpretation as a layman is that in order to use this ruling against contractors I think HMRC will have to somehow transfer liability from employer to employee. Hopefully this will mean they listen to reason and will accept a sensible settlement.

  6. #26

    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 DotasScandal View Post
    Presumably because the liability falls on the employer, not the employee. HMRC is entitled to collection from the employer.
    Understood. This is excellent news.

    Quote Originally Posted by DotasScandal View Post
    as the employer and the employer's money are gone, there is nothing to collect.
    According to the bbc article Murray says it will mean a smaller payout for other creditors. However that is a side issue.

  7. #27

    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
    I'm not a laywer but look forward to hearing from my legal representation in due course.

    My very simple interpretation as a layman is that in order to use this ruling against contractors I think HMRC will have to somehow transfer liability from employer to employee. Hopefully this will mean they listen to reason and will accept a sensible settlement.
    Slam dunk for the self employed schemes then?

    Likewise for the employed schemes, I assume that the learned gentlemen who consider these things will conclude that sprinkling magic pixie dust on your wages by giving them to someone in the IoM who then lends you the same money back again will conclude that if it still quacks and walks like a duck then the pixie dust hasn't worked?

  8. #28

    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 Fred Bloggs View Post
    Slam dunk for the self employed schemes then?

    Likewise for the employed schemes, I assume that the learned gentlemen who consider these things will conclude that sprinkling magic pixie dust on your wages by giving them to someone in the IoM who then lends you the same money back again will conclude that if it still quacks and walks like a duck then the pixie dust hasn't worked?
    The question is where does the liability fall if the magic pixie dust does not work.

  9. #29

    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 BrilloPad View Post
    The question is where does the liability fall if the magic pixie dust does not work.
    On the duck.

  10. #30

    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 Fred Bloggs View Post
    On the duck.
    Does the Duck live in the IoM or in the UK?

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.