expenses and umbrella Co's

[malvolio]

I didnt mean that bit

I meant the one that Dawn came up with about addressing tax avoidance schemes by changes to the law (erm, isn't avoidance legal, BTW?) and having the right to backdate any such changes to the date of that announcement - the day after the PBR, although it wasn't announced anywhere, merely published as a statement on Hector's website.

In other words, "we will close all such avenues effective now, it might just take a while to get round to your variant".

Or, and this is what's stirred up the legal people, "we can change the law in x years so that your present fully legal scheme becomes illegal and we can back charge the missing tax"

Now tell me this is a moderate centralist democracy we're living in.

[partimer]

re: I didnt mean that bit

>Its not the brollies he's after

Clown is after everybody for more tax. It's just wealth redistribution.
Look at his "baby bond".
Next year every baby born after Sept 2002 will get 250 quid (500 quid if you are "poor").

Now why should I pay extra tax to encourage single mothers who want to become like the Rochdale Swamp Donkey ?

>"we can change the law in x years so that your present fully legal scheme
>becomes illegal and we can back charge the missing tax"

Yes a very scary bit, backdating tax laws. Just think they could then sue Queen Vitoria for not having her tax in order (daft example but you get my drift).

I doubt if they could do this in statuory law since none of us can go back in time to alter our tax affairs and hence could not stand up in a court of law (unless Liebore remove that court of law for future tax cases).

[Bradley]

Re:loophole closed

Its not the brollies he's after

Sluggo will go after the softest target that will give the biggest reward. I'd be amazed if brollies weren't heavily targeted by the new NIC avoidance unit (wasn't there something like that in 1984?)

The retrospective stuff in the PBR just gives him licence to collect it whenever he needs it or feels he can get away with it. After all, New Labour like to have control over when bad news appears.

[Bradley]

Re: From the Latest Revenue Tax Bulletin

To qualify for travel and subsistence expenses you have to attend a "temporary" workplace. It seems from the following that quite a few working through a succession of umbrella companies won't be able to claim travel etc expenses from now on - if you agree with the Revenue that is.

If the worker has an ongoing or over-arching contract of employment covering all the assignments that he or she undertakes for the [umbrella], it may well be that none of those assignments will last, nor be expected to last, for all or almost all of the period for which the employee holds the over-arching employment. In that case the fixed term appointment rule will not apply. If the employee spends less than 24 months at each site each one will be a temporary workplace – assuming of course that the basic "task of limited duration/other temporary purpose" test is met.
However the effect of the "reasonable to assume" test should not be overlooked. An individual may have a history of moving from one [umbrella] to another [umbrella], undertaking just one assignment for each company. In the absence of evidence to the contrary it would be reasonable to assume that that pattern will continue. Each new employment/assignment would then be regarded as a permanent workplace unless and until it could be shown that, on a particular occasion, the employee would in fact be moving on to a second or subsequent assignment with the same employer.
Also, an individual may expect, when he takes up the employment with the [umbrella], that the assignment on which he is working will be his only one – because, for instance, he is filling in time between permanent assignments, or he is returning to an overseas country. In these cases the individual would not have a temporary place of work and his travel and subsistence expenses will be fully taxable and subject to NICs.

[Vetran]

Re: From the Latest Revenue Tax Bulletin

or he is returning to an overseas country. In these cases the individual would not have a temporary place of work and his travel and subsistence expenses will be fully taxable and subject to NICs.

interesting

[rootsnall]

Thanks for the replies. I think my current decision is to stick with the Ltd Co but pay myself only those expenses I incur and start paying myself everything left as PAYE and dont issue anymore dividends. Throroughly defeated by Gordon and the IR but hopefully making my sleep a little more restful. By sticking with the Ltd Co route I think I retain a little more control over my finances and the invoicing process with little extra effort and a monthly cost only slightly higher than the cheapest umbrella. Some of the umbrellas I contacted were asking for ridiculous cuts, 6% !!!

[mailmannz]

Aye feck it man...keep paying yourself dividends as its not quite illegal just yet.

Mailman