Arctic Systems in lords

[IR35 Avoider]

You just need to find 20 more people to give shares to, that you don't mind paying money to when you pay a dividend

Any income that can reasonable be attributed to your work for a particular client on a caught contract is caught by IR35, even if you own less than 5%. If IR35-avoidance was as easy as getting 20 contractors together it would never have been a problem.

[scooterscot]

well done artic

[Gros]

what is the implications of the win for the average man in the street contractor? is it just to do with married contractors, or have i got my head up my ?!

Yeah what he said.... any implications for us one man bands here?

[RightLaugh]

would be nice to get artic to post on here

[fzbucks]

Yes, it is true. But the scheme you propose is likely to fail if you read the small print.

But 20 people each with 5% of newco would work. Provided they are not connected, all receive the same dividends etc. Oh and it's likely that the combined profit would exceed tohe small companies rate of CT anyway.

Haven't they scrapped the small company CT rate anyway?

[fzbucks]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6915359.stm

Ha the PCG don't get mention in the text except for the related weblink - the FSB do though

[malvolio]

Ha the PCG don't get mention in the text except for the related weblink - the FSB do though

Yes, irritating or what?

They do get noted in most of the real press though.

[Old Greg]

From reading the PCG's analysis, it seems to me that it doesn't matter how the share distribution ended up as it did (gift of a share to spouse vs. forming the co. with the share ownership split for the beginning). Any thoughts, anyone?

[TheFaQQer]

would be nice to get artic to post on here

[Lewis]

From reading the PCG's analysis, it seems to me that it doesn't matter how the share distribution ended up as it did (gift of a share to spouse vs. forming the co. with the share ownership split for the beginning). Any thoughts, anyone?

That's what it says ...

"Although Diana Jones bought her share in Arctic Systems, rather than being directly given it by Geoff, today’s judgment treats this purchase as a gift, on the grounds that it was only possible because Geoff allowed Diana to buy the share. Gifted and purchased shares are therefore both within the scope of the exemption for gifts between spouses. "

(http://www.pcg.org.uk/cms/index.php?...=2712&Itemid=1)