Sanzar Partnership? New IOM company

[IR35 Avoider]

I thought there was legislation in 2004 which made any retrospective tax legislation legal?

I don't think this retrospective change is related to that. I don't remember the details of that change, but I think it only allowed changes to be backdated to the day it was announced, and for reasons I can't quite remember I think you did have a fighting chance of knowing whether you were doing something that could be invalidated as a result of backdated legislation. (I have vague notion that whether you were in a notifiable scheme might be a factor.)

[malvolio]

Contractors sometimes argue that they should be allowed the favourable tax regime of taking dividends because they take more risks, but I disagree. The reward for the disadvantages of contracting should come entirely from the increased rate.

Balls, if I may make so bold.

HMG has created the laws in such a way that I cannot choose to work as a self-employed contractor, I have to work through a limited company (mine or someone else's, it matters not which). Since the fiscally sensible (and indeed reccommended) route is to own the company, I end up running a micro-business and am a shareholder in a UK Limited Company. Legally that business is no diferent to Tesco apart from a few trivia like gross CT rate and reporting requirements.

So why should I be taxed differently on my shareholding simply because most of its income comes from my own efforts? Why should I be penalised becuase I am able to sell my skills at a premium rate? Why should my increased earning power be offset by taxation primarily aimed at providing a range of social services I have no need of and rarely if ever use, preferring to fund my own in the way I prefer?

[TheFaQQer]

yesterday a friend was arrested and held for 18 hours - they would not even tell him the charge!

but...

Don't they say "BrilloPad, I am arresting you for causing a public disturbance. You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not say anything that you later rely on in court. Anything that you do say may be taken down and used as evidence", thereby telling you the charge when the arrest you?

Or is it only on The Bill that they do that?

[TheFaQQer]

So why should I be taxed differently on my shareholding simply because most of its income comes from my own efforts? Why should I be penalised becuase I am able to sell my skills at a premium rate? Why should my increased earning power be offset by taxation primarily aimed at providing a range of social services I have no need of and rarely if ever use, preferring to fund my own in the way I prefer?

Because it's only fair.

[IR35 Avoider]

Balls, if I may make so bold.

HMG has created the laws in such a way that I cannot choose to work as a self-employed contractor, I have to work through a limited company (mine or someone else's, it matters not which). Since the fiscally sensible (and indeed reccommended) route is to own the company, I end up running a micro-business and am a shareholder in a UK Limited Company. Legally that business is no diferent to Tesco apart from a few trivia like gross CT rate and reporting requirements.

So why should I be taxed differently on my shareholding simply because most of its income comes from my own efforts? Why should I be penalised becuase I am able to sell my skills at a premium rate? Why should my increased earning power be offset by taxation primarily aimed at providing a range of social services I have no need of and rarely if ever use, preferring to fund my own in the way I prefer?

I think you posted too quickly, without reading the overall context. I entirely agree that you shouldn't be taxed differently because of the way you come by your income. My (now slightly elaborated) position is that Tesco, a contractor working via a company, a self-employed person and an employee should all pay the same rate of tax as each other.

There is currently virtually no connection between what people pay and what they get, as far as social spending is concerned. For that reason, I don't agree that anyone should pay less tax because they are not planning to claim benefits. I think the options are (a) accept that we live in a socialist state where our money will be confiscated for someone elses benefit, (b) try to abolish the socialist aspects of the state or (c) reform the tax and benefits systems so the vast majority of people are forced to live self-funding lives.

In other words, I want transparency and clear logic in the tax and benefits system. There should either be absolutely no connection between what you pay and what you get, or an extremely strong connection so that only an extremely small minority of hard cases are net recipients of cash over the the course of their whole lives.

[FiveTimes]

but...

Don't they say "BrilloPad, I am arresting you for causing a public disturbance. You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not say anything that you later rely on in court. Anything that you do say may be taken down and used as evidence", thereby telling you the charge when the arrest you?

Or is it only on The Bill that they do that?

Its just The Bill they say that on

[Moscow Mule]

Having seen the way that Government treat f4j (yesterday a friend was arrested and held for 18 hours - they would not even tell him the charge!) and get away with it, one should not be suprised when HMRC flex their muscles.

Know your rights.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/...ghts_on_arrest

[BrilloPad]

but...

Don't they say "BrilloPad, I am arresting you for causing a public disturbance. You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not say anything that you later rely on in court. Anything that you do say may be taken down and used as evidence", thereby telling you the charge when the arrest you?

Or is it only on The Bill that they do that?

I wish you were right. And that Dixon of Dock Green would return.

Afraid it is only on the TV. In his case it was "charges relating to your internet site". In my case it was "I dont believe you are a building worker".

[TheFaQQer]

I wish you were right. And that Dixon of Dock Green would return.

Afraid it is only on the TV. In his case it was "charges relating to your internet site". In my case it was "I dont believe you are a building worker".

Is that because you were dressed as Superman and scaling the walls of Buckingham Palace at the time?

[helen7]

any change people could stick to the topic and quit the stupid one liners...

Anyway, it seems that montpellier have responded verbally to some consulatants that there arrangement in unaffected by the changes!!!! I am waiting to see why.

Anybody else heard from them yet?