+ Reply to Thread
Page 135 of 136 FirstFirst ... 35 85 125 133 134 135 136 LastLast
Posts 1,341 to 1,350 of 1353
  1. #1341

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    5
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1

    Default I am glad you concur

    Very logical reply . Best



    Quote Originally Posted by webberg View Post
    I suggest that the rather dramatic tone and content above might be worth deeper consideration.

    To date, HMRC has won two cases on contractor schemes. One was Boyle - special circumstances, the other is Huitson courtesy of retrospective law.

    Until a case is "final", i.e. no further appeal can be made, almost all demands (APN excepted) can be postponed until final decision is made in Court or you agree a position.

    I'm aware that recently HMRC has decided to issue closure notices on the arrangements used by a major player in this space and that player has set out what their next steps are. They say (correctly) that if demands are issued, they can be stood over (postponed) until the final liability is agreed. That might be years away.

    We await the decision in Murray Group (not on the list to be released in the next week). Other than that, whilst we know of some cases going to Tribunal over the next few months, we are not aware of "HMRC having just won a crucial stage" in any hearing and certainly not one that is going to lead to demands that cannot be resisted.

    I'm willing to be corrected if evidence can be produced.

    Otherwise, these threads have had enough scare stories and predictions of doom and I think everybody here deserves to treated as adults who are capable of understanding a legal and logical process and should not be exposed to speculation that on the face of it has little or no evidence to support it.

  2. #1342

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Westminster
    Posts
    4
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Golddustz147 View Post
    Now that my previous post has been validated - viz Rangers losing major case. Who is the sad act now ? I pity you ... Please seek some major help . You genuinely need it .. No Disrespects .
    Do you know this ruling affects the tax liability of Rangers employees?

  3. #1343

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    17
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Golddustz147 View Post
    Now that my previous post has been validated - viz Rangers losing major case. Who is the sad act now ? I pity you ... Please seek some major help . You genuinely need it .. No Disrespects .
    Personally I don't need any help, but whatever the Rangers result you're still a sad act.

  4. #1344

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    WTT Consulting Ltd - London and online
    Posts
    1,444
    Thanks (Given)
    22
    Thanks (Received)
    241
    Likes (Given)
    63
    Likes (Received)
    490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Golddustz147 View Post
    Now that my previous post has been validated - viz Rangers losing major case. Who is the sad act now ? I pity you ... Please seek some major help . You genuinely need it .. No Disrespects .
    Yes, HMRC has won the case and the result is that the EMPLOYER is liable to tax.

    I suggest that far from being "validated", your previous post has been further damaged.

    Unless HMRC can transfer liability from employer to employee in the Murray Group case, they will be forced to accept a percentage of their demands with the rest of the creditors in the liquidation. I have not studied the facts around each individual, not available to the public, but I would be surprised if a transfer of liability happened and individuals received demands that forced them to pay.

  5. #1345

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    18
    Thanks (Given)
    3
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheHat View Post
    Why do you care if people pay or not? You come across like a bit of a sad act.
    +1

  6. #1346

    Some things in Moderation

    cojak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Look to your right...
    Posts
    17,645
    Thanks (Given)
    431
    Thanks (Received)
    888
    Likes (Given)
    3856
    Likes (Received)
    2515

    Default

    Please be aware that this forum is moderated.

    @Golddustz147 and TheHat - I do not expect this spat to go any further.

  7. #1347

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    18
    Thanks (Given)
    3
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

  8. #1348

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    33
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default Actinium Management Limited / AML

    I received three enquiry letters from HMRC relating to Actinium Management Ltd for the FYs 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007. Apart from receining the letters, I have heard nothing from HMRC since then.

    On occasion, over the years, I have contacted one of the directors of Actinium to see if he has heard anything from HMRC regarding the enquiries (I understand other contractors also received enquiry letters for the same period). My understanding is that there has been no contact with HMRC on the matter since about 2010.

    Does anyone reading this post have any information to add to this? Have any other contarctors had more recent contact with HMRC re: Actinium?

  9. #1349

    TripleIronDad

    BrilloPad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    93,291
    Thanks (Given)
    16954
    Thanks (Received)
    4439
    Likes (Given)
    16954
    Likes (Received)
    7940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by backrubber View Post
    I received three enquiry letters from HMRC relating to Actinium Management Ltd for the FYs 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007. Apart from receining the letters, I have heard nothing from HMRC since then.

    On occasion, over the years, I have contacted one of the directors of Actinium to see if he has heard anything from HMRC regarding the enquiries (I understand other contractors also received enquiry letters for the same period). My understanding is that there has been no contact with HMRC on the matter since about 2010.

    Does anyone reading this post have any information to add to this? Have any other contarctors had more recent contact with HMRC re: Actinium?
    What sort of enquiry letter was it?

    In general, once an enquiry has opened, it will last forever. You will probably hear nothing from HMRC until 2020. Assuming the 2019 legislation goes ahead (unlikely after the General Election and Murray decision).
    We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

  10. #1350

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    33
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrilloPad View Post
    What sort of enquiry letter was it?
    I would have to fish out the letters to see exactly what they were. The first was different to the second and third - I remember that. The first was more along the lines of "we are enquiring into your tax return", whereas the second and third were more "we intend to look into you tax return".

    All three related to dividend payments - the Actinium scheme was not an EBT / loan scheme.

    Like anyone, I don't like having this hanging over my head and would like to resolve it one way or another. The scheme was insured by QDOS consulting and I still have insurance with them, so I might (should) be covered anyway.

    I might contact QDOS to see what they think.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 135 of 136 FirstFirst ... 35 85 125 133 134 135 136 LastLast

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.