BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[ASB]

Exactly what I am saying - apologies if I didn't make it clear. 'Joe' is a sole-trader outside of IR35 and get stitched for the full tax whilst 'Ben' is inside IR35 and an employee of somebody else... and that somebody else is liable for the tax on Ben's income....

But I'm not sure who the 'somebody else' is. 'Ben' is legally contracted to the Partnership to provide services... 'Easypay Ltd' does not employ Ben.. I assume Warr and Co are arguing that it does....

Anyway, don't go there!

I think I misunderstood what you were saying

[DonkeyRhubarb]

PS.

You also have to ask the question why would the Government legislate if there was an easier way of recovering the money? I know HMRC aren't the sharpest tools in the toolbox but they have had 5 years to think about this!

Also HMRC would look really inept if they introduced controversial retroactive legislation and then didn't use it!

[smalldog]

PS.

You also have to ask the question why would the Government legislate if there was an easier way of recovering the money? I know HMRC aren't the sharpest tools in the toolbox but they have had 5 years to think about this!

Also HMRC would look really inept if they introduced controversial retroactive legislation and then didn't use it!

but they would be using it, just not against us....against companies promoting this idea in the first place...

DR, you are right, its an idea being worked on and so isnt a scheme per se right now. Dont crucify them for letting people know its WIP, Im encouraged that they wont take any payments or anything until firstly BN66 got royal assent and secondly they have consels opinion of its chances as a concept.

I doubt you would call the likes of Hayes IT small companies that would dissappear in a puff of smoke...ultimately people like that signed with Montp and they signed someone who didnt have a Ltd company (oooops!) and then signed contracts with Montp who provided a resource in name to work on client site....hmmmmm....be very interesting to see what HMRC's view would be on this....

[smalldog]

PS.

You also have to ask the question why would the Government legislate if there was an easier way of recovering the money? I know HMRC aren't the sharpest tools in the toolbox but they have had 5 years to think about this!

Also HMRC would look really inept if they introduced controversial retroactive legislation and then didn't use it!

Interestingly HMRC says they would pursue the scheme users, does that mean us or Montp? I dont think its completely clear who HMRC are going after. In all my corrrespondence all they say is prove income tax and NI is due, they dont specifically say you as an individual are liable....are we all missing the most important piece of this jigsaw?

[helen7]

Site says "Joe" pays £1000 as he didn't escape BN66.
If Warr can persuade you all to join him. 3000 * £1000 = £3m !

3m.....Not really a lot of money after tax.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

but they would be using it, just not against us....against companies promoting this idea in the first place...

My mistake, I didn't realise that Warr's "scheme" relied upon "Clause 55" becoming law.

But if that is the case, and MontP challenge "Clause 55" in the courts, then surely until the case is decided one way or the other, HMRC can't use it to go after anyone (including the companies promoting the DTA scheme).

Aren't we back to square one?

I don't know, it all sounds half-baked to me.

[smalldog]

but they would be using it, just not against us....against companies promoting this idea in the first place...

My mistake, I didn't realise that Warr's "scheme" relied upon "Clause 55" becoming law.

But if that is the case, and MontP challenge "Clause 55" in the courts, then surely until the case is decided one way or the other, HMRC can't use it to go after anyone (including the companies promoting the DTA scheme).

Aren't we back to square one?

I don't know, it all sounds half-baked to me.

DR dont disagree, its not all ironclad yet.....Im not sure I think the excuse "not my problem PAYE wasnt paid", wouldnt Hector say, "why didnt you query it earlier in the process and make sure it was being paid by MontP?"

[Lewis]

DR dont disagree, its not all ironclad yet.....Im not sure I think the excuse "not my problem PAYE wasnt paid", wouldnt Hector say, "why didnt you query it earlier in the process and make sure it was being paid by MontP?"

And why does it only work for some people on the scheme? Are you sure that Warr is not talking about IR35. If not then the BN66.co.uk site just makes no sense.

[normalbloke]

pretty much, it depends largely on IF you had ever signed any paperwork with anyone at anytime that stated you are self employed....IF you did then you dont have a chance with this one as you are obviously taking responsibility for your own tax affairs

Well, that depends surely on the 'nature of the work' that you do. You can say to HMRC that you are self employed till you are blue in the face, sign whatever forms you like etc but they will look at the contract(s) and working practices and say 'I don't think you are, mate.... you fall under IR35 etc etc'. All bets are then off. Then they look at whatever intermediary(ies) you went through and see if they have been playing ball as far as PAYE is concerned. Thats why agencies can't get stitched normally, as the contractors Ltd Co is in the way and deemed to be liable for the tax.

I think Warr is saying the UK agency is like an Umbrella, but normally, dont you sign a contract direct with an Unmbrella? (dunno, never used one) We never signed anything with the UK company. I suppose HMRC would insert a notional contract then betwen us and the UK company and ignore the IOM aspect. All too bl**dy confusing for me.... looks like Warr is getting QC opinion anyway after Royal Assent. Wait and see I suppose

[TheBigYinJames]

I think Warr is saying the UK agency is like an Umbrella, but normally, dont you sign a contract direct with an Unmbrella?

Yes.