IR35 re-opening investigations

[max]

Closing UK Ltd Co every few years is very tidy way of clearing the decks. If I read correctly, accumulated Bal Sheet profits are already taxed at CT rate, and if say 100k was there, could be drawn out at cost of 10% extra ? Any limit to the 10% threshold ? Thanks.

£1m lifetime allowance is the limit.

After that 18%.

[sidknows]

I'm not a 100% sure about this but from what I understand , the Revenue have the power to revive dissolved companies within a certain number of years of the company being dissolved -- the costs may be prohitive but if its worth their while , they can do it
Maybe someone on the forum can clarify this a bit more

[Cheshire Cat]

After reading thousands of posts on the subject, and hunting around the internet for clues, IR35 is still mostly a mystery to me. That said, I suppose that's really the objective of HMRC. Create a spectre that encourages contractors to choose the least tax effective business structure for fear of what might happen if they've misunderstood the rules, thereby maximising tax revenue. The ROI for HMRC must make IR35 a veritable cash cow. Whilst they haven't won many cases outright, there are only estimates on the number of ltd's who have just written the cheque, or the number of contractors who have simply foregone the ltd and used an umbrella instead.

My biggest confusion surrounds the nature of person vs company. Many posters suggest the company is the liable legal entity, and in closing that company, HMRC cannot retrieve money it might later calculate to be owed. But the core of IR35 is a disagreement about the amounts of "personal" taxation paid by the individual/s. In many cases HMRC have indicated they think the ltd company is a sham tax avoidance vehicle, and when they present you with a bill for tax owed, it is income tax and NICs they believe should've been paid, not unpaid CT.
With this in mind, and given the tenacious behaviour of some tax inspectors, I wouldn't feel immune from investigation simply because the company through which I'd been paid no longer existed. After all, I have still recevied the money through the company, so even if it was now closed, HMRC may take view that as I am the recipient of the funds, I am liable for the tax due.

Is there any concrete legal argument that this is not the case?

[TheBigYinJames]

or the number of contractors who have simply foregone the ltd and used an umbrella instead.

That's me. After a big tax scare in 1994 (this was pre-IR35) and lots of wrangling between IR and my accountant, a final settlement and my company being struck off (voluntarily, I might add), I decided that for the sake of my health and happiness, that I would trade through a brolly in future. And I haven't set seen anything since to make me regret that decision.