• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Isle of Man/self employed questions

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Isle of Man/self employed questions

    Hi,

    Before I set out...I want to point out that I'm not trying to avoid tax in any way...simply maximise my income.

    I've been trying to find out more information on this from searching this and other sites, but have been unable to find anything, so hopefully someone here can help. I've taken my first foray into IT contracting after my previous employer went into liquidation. As there was a bit of a rush to get into somewhere, I initially went with an umbrella company. Now that I'm in, I looking at ways of maximising my take home pay. I came across a company called The Pay Hub. They seem to offer similiar services to an umbrella, but claim reduced tax liability as they are based in the Isle of Man. That being said however, my agency claim that I can only be paid either through one of the Umbrellas on their preferred supplier list...or through a limited company which I am director of, so it seems that I will not be able to use The Pay Hub.

    I was wondering if what I can operate a similiar arrangement by setting myself up as as a self employed person for a limited company based in the Isle of Man.

    From my understanding, I would obviously still be liable for Income Tax in the UK....however, my liability for NI payments would be less (I believe 8% ?). Also....if I am correct, I would pay tax only on what money is left over after business expenses have been paid...ie I only pay tax on profit.

    So for example....if one year my company was to earn £50,000. Of wich I would pay 8% in Class 4 NI and £2.30 per week for class 2. This would leave £45,896.50. Then say I claim for £5,3896.50 in business expenses....this would leave me with £40,000 profit. Would I be correct in thinking that I would only pay income tax on the £40k profit that is made...or have I got it all completely wrong?

    Thanks

    #2
    Maximising your income by reducing your tax liability is tax avoidance. Some people here consider that immoral, others don't.

    Even if you could set up a ltd co in the Isle of Man, many agencies won't deal with offshore companies.
    Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

    Comment


      #3
      If you want to go IOM the best(only) way is montpelier.

      Alot of people here dont like them - but I do.

      Have you read the Sanzar thread?

      Comment


        #4
        Tax Avoidance is a perfectly legal right that everybody in this country should feel free to use.

        Tax Evasion is a criminal offence and will get you locked up.

        The problem is working out where the line between Avoidance and Evasion is drawn.....

        HTH

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Ardesco View Post
          Tax Avoidance is a perfectly legal right that everybody in this country should feel free to use.

          Tax Evasion is a criminal offence and will get you locked up.

          The problem is working out where the line between Avoidance and Evasion is drawn.....

          HTH
          IMO the problems are that HMRC do not understand the difference. And are trying to get laws to allow them to make their own rules, retrospectively. And to apply them without access to the courts. And to be able to take any assets as and when they want.

          These morons already have more power than the police.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
            IMO the problems are that HMRC do not understand the difference.
            They understand exactly the difference.

            What they don't want is Joe Public to understand the difference. A very different thing.

            As a general principle the world and his dog are petrified of Hector (which was definitely the right name). The introduction of additional law and power is intended to further muddy the waters.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
              IMO the problems are that HMRC do not understand the difference. And are trying to get laws to allow them to make their own rules, retrospectively. And to apply them without access to the courts. And to be able to take any assets as and when they want.

              These morons already have more power than the police.
              Originally posted by ASB View Post
              They understand exactly the difference.

              What they don't want is Joe Public to understand the difference. A very different thing.

              As a general principle the world and his dog are petrified of Hector (which was definitely the right name). The introduction of additional law and power is intended to further muddy the waters.
              I would say a bit of both. Hector have a reasonably good understanding but the understanding is being shaken by the current leadership who are trying to make out that avoidance is illegal.

              If anything I would say that the current governments way of closing "loopholes" and then going back a few years to take tax retrospectively is illegal. We are now in the unenviable situation of being completely legal but running the risk of a law change that will make what we have done previously illegal and potentially criminalise us in the process. Is this a fair and honourable way to tax people? No it's like making drinking alcohol illegal today and then going and arresting everybody who has been drinking for past year....

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Ardesco View Post
                I would say a bit of both. Hector have a reasonably good understanding but the understanding is being shaken by the current leadership who are trying to make out that avoidance is illegal.

                If anything I would say that the current governments way of closing "loopholes" and then going back a few years to take tax retrospectively is illegal. We are now in the unenviable situation of being completely legal but running the risk of a law change that will make what we have done previously illegal and potentially criminalise us in the process. Is this a fair and honourable way to tax people? No it's like making drinking alcohol illegal today and then going and arresting everybody who has been drinking for past year....
                What stuns me is that people let it happen. As long as someone else is affected it is fine.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Thanks for the replies guys...although it now seems like a moot point....just found out that the agency will def not allow me to use a company that I am not director of....nor will they allow me to use a company registered outside of the UK. Oh well...back to the drawing board.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Looking very briefly at the numbers, is there that much of a difference on your take home? as from my ltd I have all my expenses motor (24k miles pa), lunch couple a quid a day, company blackberry etc and I assume that these would be coming out of my taken home pay if I went and joined up with Sanzars or others of that ilk?

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X