+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 180 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 103 ... LastLast
Posts 21 to 30 of 1791
  1. #21
    eek
    eek is offline

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    21,948
    Thanks (Given)
    228
    Thanks (Received)
    1122
    Likes (Given)
    1004
    Likes (Received)
    3388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DotasScandal View Post
    Mods are to enforce forum rules, not judge the decency of posts (or lacktherof).
    But given that kicking fellow contractors (preferably when down) is CUK'ers favourite game, not sure why I bother...
    One of the phases that seem to occur with all people subject to HMRC's attacks has been to project their current problems into the future and claim that other contractors will be impacted by some random change...

    So I'm not kicking people when they are down, I'm asking why they are suddenly (from nowhere) making statements about HMRC that don't have any foundation in anything HMRC has published.... As there was no basis for the statements made, the next question is why are such statements being made.

    Hence my question, yes it was blunt but how else do you want me to ask it (softly step by step over 10-20 posts) or should I just ignore the blooming obvious elephant (to me) in the thread that others won't see....
    Last edited by eek; 22nd August 2016 at 15:19.
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  2. #22

    Should post faster


    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    113
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    One of the phases that seem to occur with all people subject to HMRC's attacks has been to project their current problems into the future and claim that other contractors will be impacted by some random change...

    So I'm not kicking people when they are down, I'm asking why they are suddenly (from nowhere) making statements about HMRC that don't have any foundation in anything HMRC has published.... As there was no basis for the statements made, the next question is why are such statements being made.

    Hence my question, yes it was blunt but how else do you want me to ask it (softly step by step over 10-20 posts) or should I just ignore the blooming obvious elephant (to me) in the thread that others won't see....
    Fair enough. My original was post stupidly put and I've rewritten it.

  3. #23

    Contractor Among Contractors

    DotasScandal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,122
    Thanks (Given)
    130
    Thanks (Received)
    113
    Likes (Given)
    1335
    Likes (Received)
    359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    One of the phases that seem to occur with all people subject to HMRC's attacks has been to project their current problems into the future and claim that other contractors will be impacted by some random change...
    So I'm not kicking people when they are down, I'm asking why they are suddenly (from nowhere) making statements about HMRC that don't have any foundation in anything HMRC has published....
    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    One of the phases that seem to occur with all people subject to HMRC's attacks has been to project their current problems into the future and claim that other contractors will be impacted by some random change...
    So I'm not kicking people when they are down, I'm asking why they are suddenly (from nowhere) making statements about HMRC that don't have any foundation in anything HMRC has published....
    Because there is this thing called trends.
    It's one thing to be aware that HMRC is inflicting pain on some contractors out there, experiencing said pain directly is quite another. Perhaps our friend was trying to be helpful and help fellow contractors avoid pain.

    Let me give you an example to illustrate.

    In 2014, the Government introduced the APN legislation, giving HMRC the power to inflict pain to contractors (retrospectively going back to 2004) having or having used DOTAS-registered schemes, and having open inquiries against their name.

    Contractors with non-DOTAS schemes breathed a sigh of relief.
    Some mocked the DOTAS contractors for being "stupid" enough going for not choosing a "non-DOTAS" scheme.

    Contractors with no open enquiries breathed a sigh of relief - they got lucky.
    A few actually mocked the DOTAS contractors with open enquiries for being unlucky bastards (they must have deserved it somehow - maybe retribution for some past sins or what have you).

    At the time already, we warned against the "first they came for the DOTAS contractors, and I said nothing..." mentality rampant in the "community", and postulated that HMRC would get greedier still very quickly.

    Lo and behold, in March 2016, Osborne announces plans to screw EVERY contractor who's ever had the misfortune of going anywhere near a "scheme" - this time regardless of DOTAS status or presence of valid enquiry and (cherry on the cake), applicable retrospectively going back to 1999.

    If you draw a dot representing the 2014 event, then a dot representing the 2016 event, you'll get a trendline of sorts. Consider it.
    That your present circumstances are favourable today does not mean they will be favourable tomorrow.

    Look at the trend.
    Last edited by DotasScandal; 22nd August 2016 at 15:41. Reason: spelling

  4. #24
    eek
    eek is offline

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    21,948
    Thanks (Given)
    228
    Thanks (Received)
    1122
    Likes (Given)
    1004
    Likes (Received)
    3388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DotasScandal View Post
    Because there is this thing called trends.
    It's one thing to be aware that HMRC is inflicting pain on some contractors out there, experiencing said pain directly is quite another. Perhaps our friend was trying to be helpful and help fellow contractors avoid pain.

    Let me give you an example to illustrate.

    In 2014, the Government introduced the APN legislation, giving HMRC the power to inflict pain to contractors (retrospectively going back to 2004) having or having used DOTAS-registered schemes, and having open inquiries against their name.

    Contractors with non-DOTAS schemes breathed a sigh of relief.
    Some mocked the DOTAS contractors for being "stupid" enough going for not choosing a "non-DOTAS" scheme.

    Contractors with no open enquiries breathed a sigh of relief - they got lucky.
    A few actually mocked the DOTAS contractors with open enquiries for being unlucky bastards (they must have deserved it somehow - maybe retribution for some past sins or what have you).

    At the time already, we warned against the "first they came for the DOTAS contractors, and I said nothing..." mentality rampant in the "community", and postulated that HMRC would get greedier still very quickly.

    Lo and behold, in March 2016, Osborne announces plans to screw EVERY contractor who's ever had the misfortune of going anywhere near a "scheme" - this time regardless of DOTAS status or presence of valid enquiry and (cherry on the cake), applicable retrospectively going back to 1999.

    If you draw a dot representing the 2014 event, then a dot representing the 2016 event, you'll get a trendline of sorts. Consider it.
    That your present circumstances are favourable today does not mean they will be favourable tomorrow.

    Look at the trend.
    That has nothing to do with contractors but instead those who were scared by smooth talking salesmen into join a tax avoidance scheme that they didn't spend enough time researching before committing to..

    I'm very happy to discuss those schemes outside of the protected HMRC Scheme Enquiries sub-forum - while it will be rather hard for me to bite my tongue and give my opinion of all those involved without getting banned I'll try my best...
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  5. #25

    TPAFKAk2p2

    mudskipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    24,658
    Thanks (Given)
    791
    Thanks (Received)
    1332
    Likes (Given)
    6170
    Likes (Received)
    4789

    Default

    Back to the OP.

    If someone has had their current contract and working practices reviewed as "outside" have provided that evidence to their client and had it accepted, I would think they are in a great position to challenge the client's (or tool's) decision if they are deemed to be "inside" after April 2016.

  6. #26

    Contractor Among Contractors

    DotasScandal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,122
    Thanks (Given)
    130
    Thanks (Received)
    113
    Likes (Given)
    1335
    Likes (Received)
    359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    That has nothing to do with contractors but instead those who were scared by smooth talking salesmen into join a tax avoidance scheme that they didn't spend enough time researching before committing to...
    It has everything to do with contractors. Yes, like it or not, even "scheme" contractors are your fellow professionals. And believe it or not - some did their due diligence.

    But thanks for your comment nonetheless, because you are precisely showcasing the "us & them" mentality that I was talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    I'm very happy to discuss those schemes outside of the protected HMRC Scheme Enquiries sub-forum - while it will be rather hard for me to bite my tongue and give my opinion of all those involved without getting banned I'll try my best...
    This was not meant as an invitation but, as I wrote, as an illustration. Think I've made my point, so we don't particularly need to discuss further, and you won't have to bite your tongue.

  7. #27

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    215
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    7
    Likes (Given)
    10
    Likes (Received)
    18

    Default

    I've already had two newbie contractors who have no knowledge of forums like these, tell me about a way they can retain 90% of their invoices.

    And these are public sector contractors, working at or next door to HMRC! So the assumption that it's fairly obvious that these schemes are easily spotted and avoided is not the case.
    Last edited by nucastle; 22nd August 2016 at 16:11.

  8. #28

    Should post faster


    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    113
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mudskipper View Post
    Back to the OP.

    If someone has had their current contract and working practices reviewed as "outside" have provided that evidence to their client and had it accepted, I would think they are in a great position to challenge the client's (or tool's) decision if they are deemed to be "inside" after April 2016.
    Yep. I had my contract reviewed but not my working practices. I don't think many of my friends here even had a contract review.

  9. #29

    Contractor Among Contractors

    DotasScandal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,122
    Thanks (Given)
    130
    Thanks (Received)
    113
    Likes (Given)
    1335
    Likes (Received)
    359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nucastle View Post
    I've already had two newbie contractors who have no knowledge of forums like these, tell me about a way you can retain 90% of their invoices.
    And these are public sector contractors. So the assumption that it's fairly obvious that these schemes are easily spotted and avoided is not the case.
    And that's in 2016, when there are HMRC "spotlights" all over the place.
    2005 was much different.

  10. #30
    eek
    eek is offline

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    21,948
    Thanks (Given)
    228
    Thanks (Received)
    1122
    Likes (Given)
    1004
    Likes (Received)
    3388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nucastle View Post
    I've already had two newbie contractors who have no knowledge of forums like these, tell me about a way you can retain 90% of their invoices.

    And these are public sector contractors. So the assumption that it's fairly obvious that these schemes are easily spotted and avoided is not the case.
    Scheme salesman have 2 things on their side

    1) the fear story of ir35
    2) the greed of the contractor

    I would also add that until very recently HMRC didn't help by not having a don't be so fluffing stupid page on their website. Thankfully and only 15 years too late that admission has been fixed
    Last edited by eek; 22nd August 2016 at 16:19.
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 180 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 103 ... 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.