Guardian reveal: temp agencies' tax avoidance scheme costs 'hundreds of millions'

[LondonManc]

That's not quite how it works, we reckon. HMRC's latest retrospective shenanigans seem to us more directly motivated by HMRC's will to cover up their own inaction (or shall we say complicity) with regard to all these "arrangements", sometimes for over a decade. Even influential professional bodies like the ICAEW say so, and very bluntly.
Besides, the "tax avoidance" narrative is a good one to justify looting some plebs.

The Pillage Idiot

The interesting part for me in this is the offshore element. That could certainly be worth Hector looking into. At least it keeps them away from us for a while, I hope.

[eek]

Sadly that's how it works. Non-corporate taxes are a personal responsibility so you have to prosecute an individual.

We are talking about "Employers" NI here....

[piebaps]

"Griffin said his firm has a QC’s opinion stating the Premier Payco scheme legally helps clients avoid taxes, because it is based on “genuine” commercial relationships between the interacting companies and had not been created specifically to avoid tax!



This sounds awfully familiar

[LondonManc]

"Griffin said his firm has a QC’s opinion stating the Premier Payco scheme legally helps clients avoid taxes, because it is based on “genuine” commercial relationships between the interacting companies and had not been created specifically to avoid tax!



This sounds awfully familiar

Like those genuine directors in the Philippines and Pakistan?

[eek]

"Griffin said his firm has a QC’s opinion stating the Premier Payco scheme legally helps clients avoid taxes, because it is based on “genuine” commercial relationships between the interacting companies and had not been created specifically to avoid tax!



This sounds awfully familiar

Not quite. Most of the contractor schemes were designed in conjunction with a QC (who clearly was having a very enjoyable liquid lunch as they were designing it).

[DotasScandal]

Not quite. Most of the contractor schemes were designed in conjunction with a QC (who clearly was having a very enjoyable liquid lunch as they were designing it).

Disagree.
A few contractor schemes were probably designed in conjunction with a QC.
The majority were probably mere variations on the above few, if not straight cut & paste.

[eek]

It was the liquid lunch part of my statement that was important not the qc bit.

[malvolio]

They might well have had a QC's opinion on the workability. That doesn't mean it was favourable, or even that the scheme was valid. If it were, they would have splashed it all over their publicity.

[DotasScandal]

They might well have had a QC's opinion on the workability. That doesn't mean it was favourable, or even that the scheme was valid. If it were, they would have splashed it all over their publicity.

If "schemes" were on such a shaky ground, it begs the question why HMRC didn't move and challenge any of the bigger schemes in the period 2000-2016. It's not exactly like they didn't have enough powers (GAAR, anyone?)
Unless you consider that HMRC and the "promoters" are partners in crime, that is.
Now here's something that the Guardian might want to "investigate".

[BrilloPad]

If HMRC went after the scheme provider and all those who advised them, they could stop these schemes taking off.

The biggest mistake these companies made was not being large companies (Starbucks, Google, etc) who can quite legally pay almost zero tax.