Murray Group decision 5th July

[BrilloPad]

The tax burden is always with the employee. If employer makes mistake then employee still owns the money, or 3rd party they nominated for payment. Ultimately it will come back onto employee.

You might want to read the law rather than trying to point score on here. It has already been stated that they will have to transfer liability and there are conditions which must be met in order for that to happen. Maybe those conditions can me met, maybe not. Maybe HMRC should just do what is in the public interest and offer a settlement on sensible terms.

AtW has a long history of viciously attacking those who don't pay a "fair" rate of tax. In fact, thanks to him and other "whiners" it made getting NTRT off the ground very difficult. In the early days of BN66, I spent most of my time(in professional forums), arguing about morality.

At CUK, we are all impressed with AtW's business and technical achievements(as much as the queen) and this is to be celebrated.

However his legal understanding is very poor and there is alot of point scoring. He really needs to confine himself to general, technical and LR if he cannot let his personal prejudices interfere with facts.

I am hopeful that Admin and/or mods will move the last few posts into general where there can be a huge whinefest with the usual suspects. Abandon hope all who enter general.

I understand there needs to be plenty of warnings in professional forums about entering schemes. However allowing schadenfreude with those facing bankruptcy is too far.

[AtW]

However his legal understanding is very poor

And where did your legal understanding get you?

It's obvious that HMRC will move down the chain in cases when employer can't cover the tax due, this tax will be even higher if that employee effectively gets gross amount as net, can't see employers willing to double up the amount of tax.

[administrator]

I agree with Brillo. This is a forum for the support of those facing these challenges, AtW, trying to guess as to what comes next or pontificate on who is responsible is not needed here.

[AtW]

OK, fine, I'll pontificate in the General then...

[administrator]

And where did your legal understanding get you?

It's obvious that HMRC will move down the chain in cases when employer can't cover the tax due, this tax will be even higher if that employee effectively gets gross amount as net, can't see employers willing to double up the amount of tax.

Mate, legal understanding at the time did not bank on HMRC taking the unprecedented step of retrospective legislation - if you can't see the problem with that, and the potential ramifications for any sort of tax planning, then you are kidding yourself as to the honesty and integrity of those in charge of our taxation and political systems.

[webberg]

And where did your legal understanding get you?

It's obvious that HMRC will move down the chain in cases when employer can't cover the tax due, this tax will be even higher if that employee effectively gets gross amount as net, can't see employers willing to double up the amount of tax.

It might be obvious, it's just not legal.

[Fred Bloggs]

Retrospective legislation is quite legal. And even if they weren't, then its the balance outstanding as at 2019 that counts. Of course, the burden falls on the employer(thats the IOM duck for Fred "thicko" Bloggs).

A little harsh there, I feel, BP.

[BrilloPad]

A little harsh there, I feel, BP.

If you want to discuss it, start a thread in general. Or you can come along to the next CUK meet up and discuss it face to face. The next one will be held in Bridgwater.

[ASB]

In the murray case it seems the "scheme" users and pretty safe from transfer of liability. Indeed i recall expressing this view some time ago.

I am assuming that said users didnt get discovery assessments etc at any point.

It does seem rather different to the approach taken against the average scheme for contractors.

I also wonder whether the murray mob might still be at risk from the 2019 loan charge or write off.

[BrilloPad]

In the murray case it seems the "scheme" users and pretty safe from transfer of liability. Indeed i recall expressing this view some time ago.

I am assuming that said users didnt get discovery assessments etc at any point.

It does seem rather different to the approach taken against the average scheme for contractors.

I also wonder whether the murray mob might still be at risk from the 2019 loan charge or write off.

They are not at risk at it was never a loan. And the law is clear - the burden falls on the employer.

However the BBC article says retrospective legislation will be introduced.