• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Murray Group decision 5th July

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
    Does the Duck live in the IoM or in the UK?
    Depends who is asking

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
      Does the Duck live in the IoM or in the UK?
      The duck was given to you in the UK in return for pottering around and doing a few bits and bobs, as you do. But then you sprinkled the pixie dust on it and sent it to the nice man in the IoM who then sent you in return a couple of legs, two breasts, two wings and a carcass back, on loan. Snag is the because the pixie dust didn't work, you still have a duck and ducks are taxed.
      Last edited by Fred Bloggs; 5 July 2017, 11:26.
      Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
      Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.

      Comment


        #33
        I didn't realise this thread was in General.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by ChimpMaster View Post
          I didn't realise this thread was in General.
          Just search/paste "money" for "duck" eh?
          Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
          Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by ChimpMaster View Post
            I didn't realise this thread was in General.
            I am going to give now since FB is either a politician or a tax advisor. No straight answers to a straight question.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
              I am going to give now since FB is either a politician or a tax advisor. No straight answers to a straight question.
              Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
              Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.

              Comment


                #37
                So, it's crystal clear now that those "loans" are in fact emoluments, something that was obvious from start, yet it required many years of expensive litigation.

                Employer was meant to deduct them, just because they gone bust does not mean the persons who got the tax free cash get to keep it. It will probably take another 5-7 years of litigation to get to this yet another obvious point. I guess they might argue that employer NICs is not taxpayers responsibility, but everything else (Income tax, Employee NICs) surely is.
                Last edited by AtW; 5 July 2017, 12:02.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by Dylan View Post
                  You ever heard of the phrase "pyrrhic victory"
                  There must be plenty of still solvent employers with EBTs...

                  Comment


                    #39
                    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.
                    Well let's hope so.
                    Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

                    (No, me neither).

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by AtW View Post
                      So, it's crystal clear now that those "loans" are in fact emoluments, something that was obvious from start, yet it required many years of expensive litigation.

                      Employer was meant to deduct them, just because they gone bust does not mean the persons who got the tax free cash get to keep it. It will probably take another 5-7 years of litigation to get to this yet another obvious point. I guess they might argue that employer NICs is not taxpayers responsibility, but everything else (Income tax, Employee NICs) surely is.
                      Not necessarily, if it is found that the employer was responsible but the employer is no longer a legal entity then there is no way that HMRC can get the cash from them. That shouldn't mean that the liability is then passed to the employee. That is the pyrrhic victory, they have won but they won't see much cash from the IoM scheme organiser. From Rangers yes, as sounds like the assets have been held while the case was concluded so HMRC will be able to recoup some of the cash. Enough to pay for all of this litigation though?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X