BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[Grim Reaper]

I am still registered but have halted NI and tax contributions as am no longer using it. May as well cancel it given I won't be using MTM again - unless I get constipation off course - again...

[BrilloPad]

I am still registered but have halted NI and tax contributions as am no longer using it. May as well cancel it given I won't be using MTM again - unless I get constipation off course - again...

Why cancel it? Just leave it dormant.

[ASB]

i registered as employed in Jan 08 so no to your question...very interesting point about fees paid to Montp, all the fees I paid over the years cant be taxable, as you say it was never received. That will take a nice lump off any eventual bill.

I dont want to rain on your parade but I think that may be optimistic. HMRC could (I'm not saying will) regard the payments made as income disregarding any fees. There is quite a lot of precedent for this (but I can't be bothered to look it up). The general principle that HMRC may wish to apply is to look through all the arrangements. As a contrived example "I" bill 100k under a contract and this is "diverted" to somebody else who arrange things such as I get 90k. If HMRC decide these arrangements are ineffective (and establish it) they are going to want to unwind the entire arrangement and assess the entire 100k to me.

[BrilloPad]

I dont want to rain on your parade but I think that may be optimistic. HMRC could (I'm not saying will) regard the payments made as income disregarding any fees. There is quite a lot of precedent for this (but I can't be bothered to look it up). The general principle that HMRC may wish to apply is to look through all the arrangements. As a contrived example "I" bill 100k under a contract and this is "diverted" to somebody else who arrange things such as I get 90k. If HMRC decide these arrangements are ineffective (and establish it) they are going to want to unwind the entire arrangement and assess the entire 100k to me.

Well not much we can do about it now.

Personally I am just awaiting the "Official CUK Montpelier Judicial Review" thread. After the highs and lows of the bn66 thread this promises to be a corker.

Though the thread after that "Official CUK Mal strikes back" has alot of promise too! Soory Mal

[DonkeyRhubarb]

As a contrived example "I" bill 100k under a contract and this is "diverted" to somebody else who arrange things such as I get 90k. If HMRC decide these arrangements are ineffective (and establish it) they are going to want to unwind the entire arrangement and assess the entire 100k to me.

But this is exactly what contract agencies do. They take an x% cut and pass the rest on to you. I don't see how you can be taxed on income you haven't received. Surely any liability on the 10k in your example falls on the party (MontP) who received the 10k?

[smalldog]

As a contrived example "I" bill 100k under a contract and this is "diverted" to somebody else who arrange things such as I get 90k. If HMRC decide these arrangements are ineffective (and establish it) they are going to want to unwind the entire arrangement and assess the entire 100k to me.

But this is exactly what contract agencies do. They take an x% cut and pass the rest on to you. I don't see how you can be taxed on income you haven't received. Surely any liability on the 10k in your example falls on the party (MontP) who received the 10k?

Thats what I would have thought too. Our fee payments to Montp are THEIR income which they are taxed on. If we are also taxed then in would be taxed twice...Dont get me wrong, I know this does happen thanks to HMRC!

[malvolio]

As a contrived example "I" bill 100k under a contract and this is "diverted" to somebody else who arrange things such as I get 90k. If HMRC decide these arrangements are ineffective (and establish it) they are going to want to unwind the entire arrangement and assess the entire 100k to me.

But this is exactly what contract agencies do. They take an x% cut and pass the rest on to you. I don't see how you can be taxed on income you haven't received. Surely any liability on the 10k in your example falls on the party (MontP) who received the 10k?

No it's not. The difference is the agency wins the busines then pays you some of their money to fulfil it . This is vastly different to you passing your gross income to someone else to manage for you.

[BrilloPad]

Thats what I would have thought too. Our fee payments to Montp are THEIR income which they are taxed on. If we are also taxed then in would be taxed twice...Dont get me wrong, I know this does happen thanks to HMRC!

Do montpelier take their income onshore or offshore? If offshore - will HMRC chase the onshore part of montp for the 10%?

[helen7]

Actually how it worked was

I worked for a UK company(e.g. Newquay Professional). A contract between agency and them for my services. I was paid a salary which was fully taxed.

Newquay took the rest of the money, kept some as a fee and put it into the partnership run by Monp. As a member of the partnership I was entititled to a share (tax free).

So the money that the agency pays to Newquay is irrelivent since it has nothing to do with me. I was just a self employed person providing services to Newquay.

Incidently; the newquay equivilant that I was through closed down last summer.

Oh, and I type fast so no smart arse

[ASB]

As a contrived example "I" bill 100k under a contract and this is "diverted" to somebody else who arrange things such as I get 90k. If HMRC decide these arrangements are ineffective (and establish it) they are going to want to unwind the entire arrangement and assess the entire 100k to me.

But this is exactly what contract agencies do. They take an x% cut and pass the rest on to you. I don't see how you can be taxed on income you haven't received. Surely any liability on the 10k in your example falls on the party (MontP) who received the 10k?

The difference is there is business purpose for the involvement of the agency. It is perfectly possible to be taxed on income you have not received (I am every year on income from my kids savings). I'm not saying they will seek to do it, just the possibility exists (though from what I know on reflection it seems lee likely).