Anyone thinking of using an avoidance scheme, DONT!

[Zero Liability]

A bit off topic, but it doesn't "have" to be there. The reason for it is because they spend the amount that they spend. At present it's sustainable because it isn't clear how much is paid in taxation (even more obscure if you add in things like price inflation generated by central bank coordinated credit expansion), partially due to the misconception that the employer "pays" it (even though the ultimate effect is to make employment more expensive), but any schemes of merging these taxes will make it much clearer, as will their plans to introduce "transparency" in how tax income is spent. I guess those are all very good reasons (to politicians) not to do it, and if they're anything like the Lib dems, they'll have no issue on reneging on their "promises", but equally, I don't see why the current tax system should carry on.

I also don't think it's worth coming up with doomsday scenarios about contractors operating outside IR35 being given the same treatment as the EBT schemes and the like, though, irrespective of what the Tories do with this should they win. It may happen, but it's a different kettle of fish.

[tractor]

...

A bit off topic, but it doesn't "have" to be there. The reason for it is because they spend the amount that they spend. At present it's sustainable because it isn't clear how much is paid in taxation (even more obscure if you add in things like price inflation generated by central bank coordinated credit expansion), partially due to the misconception that the employer "pays" it (even though the ultimate effect is to make employment more expensive), but any schemes of merging these taxes will make it much clearer, as will their plans to introduce "transparency" in how tax income is spent. I guess those are all very good reasons (to politicians) not to do it, and if they're anything like the Lib dems, they'll have no issue on reneging on their "promises", but equally, I don't see why the current tax system should carry on.

I also don't think it's worth coming up with doomsday scenarios about contractors operating outside IR35 being given the same treatment as the EBT schemes and the like, though, irrespective of what the Tories do with this should they win. It may happen, but it's a different kettle of fish.

'They' have to keep the majority relatively poor and beholden to the Lord of the Manor Banks. If they did not, there would be no one to clean the bogs and drive the trains. This is why every now and then, they open the floodgates to top up the 'workers' e.g. the last 10 years now that the population is aging so much. Labout also did it to garner more votes from an ever grateful sector but that's a different story.

This is why they do the things that they do. Most people think it's a sign of stupidity and incompetence but they know exactly what they are doing.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I hope the message from this thread gets out there but, in my experience, all the recent HMRC pronouncements have made little difference - we are seeing 2 or 3 new avoidance schemes being advertised every week. They have the same old promises re take home pay but their marketing is primarily based around the schemes being '100% onshore' and 'Not required to be DOTAS registered'. These are genuine ads:

"All your money is kept in the UK at all times.
We do not rely on options that involve you being employed in businesses based in tax havens.
We don't promote Offshore Employment Intermediaries, or indeed offshore at all.
We don't promote Managed Service Companies.
We don't promote arrangements that could be considered to be an 'abusive arrangement' under the recent General Anti-Abuse Rules (GAAR)."

Above scheme promises 90% take home.

"Same day payments up to 87%
All insurances included (£17m worth of cover)
Total compliance with AWR, IR35 & MSC
Minimal admin
No expenses to worry about
No need for a tax return
Fully HMRC compliant
Backed by leading QC legal opinion and underpinned by established statue law
All funds stay in the UK
Fully insured and indemnified
Quick payments
No joining or exit fees
Proven and long-running solutions, in operation for over 14 years"

What this scheme provider doesn't tell you is that their company was only incorporated in June 2014 and their sole director is currently the Director of 62 other companies, the longest standing being just over 2 years.

The point, with all these schemes, is that they tell people what they want to hear - if human beings didn't love the thought of risk and reward the National Lottery would have folded years ago. You also have to consider that any half decent scheme provider can probably refer to 2 or 3 legal cases that HMRC have lost where a 'similar' tax plan was used thereby giving reassurance to their potential customer e.g. the Rangers case. They will also be able to cite Judges' comments and QCs' comments that back up their assertions that their scheme is completely above board.

Now, unless you have visited this lovely forum or understand a bit about the UK taxation system how deeply are you likely to question what you're being told?? Especially when the person giving you the information is telling you exactly what you want to hear

[borderreiver]

Backed by leading QC legal opinion and underpinned by established statue law

How I hope the advert is really worded like this ...

if human beings didn't love the thought of risk and reward the National Lottery would have folded years ago.

True, except you only stand to lose your stake in the National Lottery ...

I'm amazed people get away with advertising this kind of thing, but obviously they do. I presume Mr "Director of 62 Companies" is shutting them down almost as soon as he's registering them? Doesn't this raise red flags with HMRC and Companies House?