concern about payschemeplus

[Bradley]

Reextra

Your right, EBT's were outlawed in the UK, that is why the employer company is based off shore. GB has a real bee in his bonnet about companies in the UK paying Corp tax so UK based employers cannot offer EBT's.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. UK companies can offer EBTs and get CT relief on contributions to them as long as the payments to the employee/beneficiaries are taxed within 9 months of the company's year-end.

By virtue of what has happened with Dextra the IR are unable to call benefits from EBT's back in to call for tax and NI, you can't change precident. I have no doubt that they will try and rewrite legislation to try and stop this from happening at some future date, but they will need to be very clever about it.

Sorry, more nonsense. A foreign employer employing people to work in the UK has to account for PAYE/NIC to the Revenue on their earnings. Their CT residence status is immaterial. The Revenue doesn't need to be clever.

However, even if the legislation is changed providing you stop using the scheme on or before the date the legislation takes effect there is no way that the IR can come after you.

Looks like you're on a roll ... Pre-Budget report 2004 - the PMG stated that employment related schemes considered to be unnacceptable avoidance would be subject to retrospective legislation.

With regards to accounting for it the employer completes a P11D each year - there is a whole section dedicated to Low interest and interest free loans.

And your point is? Doesn't this prove that the EBT is PAYE registered here?

For what its worth my brother is a tax expert working for PWC and I took him along to the meeting with me when I looked at using my current provider. He has no concerns with it, hence why I took it up.

I think your brother should give up the day job.

[Tramline]

Bradley, with the greatest of respect, the way I have conveyed my understanding may not be technically correct to the last detail. But I do know that when it comes to tax my brother is very well qualified and would not advisely incorrectly. He spent over 3 hours meeting the providers I use with me and was satisified with it.

You obviously have a degree of knowledge, but its unqualified.

[Bradley]

Bradley, with the greatest of respect, the way I have conveyed my understanding may not be technically correct to the last detail. But I do know that when it comes to tax my brother is very well qualified and would not advisely incorrectly. He spent over 3 hours meeting the providers I use with me and was satisified with it.

You obviously have a degree of knowledge, but its unqualified.

And I bet your brother doesn't deal with this type of scheme - it's not PCWs field of expertise. What side's he on - corporate or personal?

If he's so qualified, could he answer the points I've raised and explain why he thinks it works?

[partimer]

an important point

To add to the discussion.
I think you have to remember that any advice from any tax expert is representive of that time and context of the situation. I refer you all to s660a. There was no change of law. Any accountant and tax expert a few years ago would tell you to split dividends between you and your Mrs.

Look at what happened. The Artic case shows that Clown and co. can simply change the goal posts and back date it (even though the IR did eventually drop the backdated stuff in the Artic case). I can see how Brownstuff could reclassify tax avoidance into tax evasion and spin it to the general public as closing tax loopholes.

Also remember that Clown floated the idea (but it got laughed out) that international sports people should get their prize money taxed at the higher rate since they won it in the UK. We all know how much of a penny pincher he is.

I'm not saying we should all roll over. Far from it !!!
If you're happy with your EBT then stick with it. The only thing is that you don't want to be first in the queue when the IR come knocking after any "re-interpretation" of the rules, like the Artic case.

[tim123]

Also remember that Clown floated the idea (but it got laughed out) that international sports people should get their prize money taxed at the higher rate since they won it in the UK.

Not sure what you are referring to here, but International sports stars get their UK earned income (which includes prize money) taxed in the UK, just like any other person. And in order to stop them evading it, some of the money is with-held at source. This has been the case since long before the clown made the rules.

So what did he propose that is different?

tim