More EBTs in Tribunal
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Posts 21 to 26 of 26
  1. #21

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    455
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    30
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    83

    Default

    HMRC spend a pile of cash to win in the SC and then decide it doesn't suit their purpose so they try and get HMG to change the law to suit another interpretation?
    How are the courts going to see that?
    What is the point in giving any ruling, if HMG just changes the law to suit HMRC's whim?

  2. #22

    Should post faster


    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    157
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    28
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jbryce View Post
    HMRC spend a pile of cash to win in the SC and then decide it doesn't suit their purpose so they try and get HMG to change the law to suit another interpretation?
    Contractors are a subset of the entire population of people who got loans. On average, I'd say that the loans to a contractor were on the smaller side (e.g. compared to an investment banker, fund manager, footballer or owner-managers). Many have settled but not all. So there is a very large population of people out there who have a solvent employer who is now going to have to stump up the PAYE/NIC when the follower notices come out.

    Some schemes had the employer put cash into the trust knowing who was going to get the cash. In others they did not. In others the employer bought a "pre-funded" EBT and then it made loans. In those last two cases, why does Condition B of regulation 81 of the PAYE regs not apply to transfer the PAYE liability to the employee?

    I'm also not clear why people say it does not suit HMRC's purpose? I've not discussed this with them, but they have many purposes and where there is a solvent employer it works well for them. The width of the decision works well too (e.g. if someone got paid via a contract for difference - which is probably not a contractor thing). Also, it (together with UBS) has a huge deterrent effect. So while it may or may not help on a relatively small aspect, it would seem to suit them very well from a big picture perspective.

  3. #23

    TripleIronDad

    BrilloPad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Littering gel wrappers in Surrey
    Posts
    95,828
    Thanks (Given)
    20504
    Thanks (Received)
    5266
    Likes (Given)
    20504
    Likes (Received)
    9154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jbryce View Post
    HMRC spend a pile of cash to win in the SC and then decide it doesn't suit their purpose so they try and get HMG to change the law to suit another interpretation?
    How are the courts going to see that?
    What is the point in giving any ruling, if HMG just changes the law to suit HMRC's whim?
    Following the DTA retrospective change in 2008, the courts ruled that the government can make any law they want when they want to.
    Katy Perry - don't be afraid to catch feels. Taylor Swift - feels $1 a go.

  4. #24

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    21
    Thanks (Given)
    12
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    10
    Likes (Received)
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webberg View Post
    From the long pause in the HMRC webinar last week and the subsequent "the decision was wider than we expected and we're still thinking about it" response, I suspect that HMRC is struggling.

    I suspect you are on the right lines about HMRC initially thinking that a decision that the sums are taxable was what they wanted.

    However they won big but that means probably that the employer is responsible and many of those have disappeared forever, leaving HMRC with a lot of egg on face. I think PAC will be very interested.
    Hi, I listened to the Webinar and I thought this subject was raised in the Q&A. I understood that HMRC said that although the responsibility has been deemed to be the employers it did not say it was NOT the responsibility of the employee. So I guess they see both as responsible should it suit them.

  5. #25

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    455
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    30
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clairol View Post
    Hi, I listened to the Webinar and I thought this subject was raised in the Q&A. I understood that HMRC said that although the responsibility has been deemed to be the employers it did not say it was NOT the responsibility of the employee. So I guess they see both as responsible should it suit them.
    Indeed, although in this case, the employer knew where the cash was going and had insisted that all PAYE was covered.

  6. #26

    Super poster

    Fred Bloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,665
    Thanks (Given)
    11
    Thanks (Received)
    76
    Likes (Given)
    60
    Likes (Received)
    257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrilloPad View Post
    Following the DTA retrospective change in 2008, the courts ruled that the government can make any law they want when they want to.
    An odd thing to say really. I mean, they are the government. The government make whatever law they like. If the court deems anything unlawful the government can change the law so it is. Seems a statement of the obvious to me, especially since we will soon be making all our own laws again post Brexit.
    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.