BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued

[Rainham]

Hawkwind I couldn't have put it better myself.

IR35 was quite simply introduced to persecute one man LTD companies that were run by far SUPERIOR, PROFESSIONAL, and, COMPETENT people than any of your big IT consulting companies could provide (Yeah I’ve had to work with them as well, rubbish aren’t they ). And to rub salt in the wounds we were half the price! Well that wouldn’t do now would it, normal people taking 'his nibs' money. A word in the right ear and hey presto IR35.

[smalldog]

We are not just contractors because we want to take advantage of the extra pay. I for one couldnt stand to be a permie again, I love the variety, not getting embroiled in politics, being there to do a specific job and then get out, and moving from client to client on a regular basis. Its also very nice to be in business on your own account and not be working for someone else. You get paid what you get paid, i.e. more than a permie as its partly danger money, uncertainty, market conditions etc can have a much more serious impact on contract markets than permie. 9 times out of 10 you are paid this extra pay as you are an expert, highly skilled and bringing a service a lot of times companies dont want 9-5 365. I am a manager myself, with projects to deliver varying from a few weeks to a few months, I would not be in a position to recruit permies as what would I do with them after 3 months? The company, in my case public sector couldnt take on lots and lots of permies and then have unions et al breathing down their necks to try and redistribute people who have finished a particular project and no longer have a role.

There is a very real need for contractors in the market place and they should be rewarded well for the service they provide to companies and industry, not penalised. Shutting down the contract market, which this government seems determined to do will have a serious and damaging impact on the economy and public sector services, they are shooting themselves in the foot projects would not start, period. I know I run them. If they didnt then I for one, working in the public sector would see serious consequences for public sector services out there and Joe public would feel the pinch all for tryign to extract a bit more tax out of contractors, is it worth it?

If you kill the contractor market you will damage public services, transportation, health care, criminial systems and core public infrastructure. Regardless of the impacts to corporate business and delivery.

[Friendly Accountant]

C'mon....admit it!

Look, I have absolutely no problem with the schemes provided by Montpellier or any other provider, as long as they comply with the letter of the law. It is all of our rights to minimise the tax we pay under the law. But, c’mon. Admit it. The reason you are / were on this scheme is to take home more money. There is nothing wrong with that. I do all I can to maximise my take-home pay too. If I were in a position to use one of the loan based schemes, I’d do so in a second. There is nothing wrong with that.

But to try to cloak this fact with some argument that it is a protest against an unjust tax system or irresponsible government spending is a joke. People are driven to reduce their tax liabilities through greed. Nothing else.

And again – nothing wrong with that!

[poppy01]

Look, I have absolutely no problem with the schemes provided by Montpellier or any other provider, as long as they comply with the letter of the law. It is all of our rights to minimise the tax we pay under the law. But, c’mon. Admit it. The reason you are / were on this scheme is to take home more money. There is nothing wrong with that. I do all I can to maximise my take-home pay too. If I were in a position to use one of the loan based schemes, I’d do so in a second. There is nothing wrong with that.

But to try to cloak this fact with some argument that it is a protest against an unjust tax system or irresponsible government spending is a joke. People are driven to reduce their tax liabilities through greed. Nothing else.

And again – nothing wrong with that!

but unfortunately its true. MP would not exist but for IR35.

[smalldog]

Look, I have absolutely no problem with the schemes provided by Montpellier or any other provider, as long as they comply with the letter of the law. It is all of our rights to minimise the tax we pay under the law. But, c’mon. Admit it. The reason you are / were on this scheme is to take home more money. There is nothing wrong with that. I do all I can to maximise my take-home pay too. If I were in a position to use one of the loan based schemes, I’d do so in a second. There is nothing wrong with that.

But to try to cloak this fact with some argument that it is a protest against an unjust tax system or irresponsible government spending is a joke. People are driven to reduce their tax liabilities through greed. Nothing else.

And again – nothing wrong with that!

absolutely to earn more than paying a ridiculous tax under IR35, i.e. circa 50% I ran an LTD prior to IR35 and was quite happy paying my CT and tax on divs and would have stayed on it too but for IR35. My point was against this "go permie then".....IF the government keep doing what they are doing, they will drive people out of contracting and into perm jobs, that would be an unmitigated disaster for public and private sector! They would be shooting themselves in the foot.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Look, I have absolutely no problem with the schemes provided by Montpellier or any other provider, as long as they comply with the letter of the law. It is all of our rights to minimise the tax we pay under the law. But, c’mon. Admit it. The reason you are / were on this scheme is to take home more money. There is nothing wrong with that. I do all I can to maximise my take-home pay too. If I were in a position to use one of the loan based schemes, I’d do so in a second. There is nothing wrong with that.

But to try to cloak this fact with some argument that it is a protest against an unjust tax system or irresponsible government spending is a joke. People are driven to reduce their tax liabilities through greed. Nothing else.

And again – nothing wrong with that!

As far as I'm aware, no contractor schemes existed prior to IR35. The tax avoidance industry must have been licking their chops when it came in, as all of a sudden it opened up a whole new market for them.

Like many people who joined MontP back in 2001, I did it as a reaction to IR35. I won't deny that the extra income wasn't attractive but for many of us this wasn't the main motivation. At the time there was no IR35 insurance, and it just seemed more risky continuing Ltd than joining a scheme. You can call it greed if you like but I don't know anyone I worked with who just accepted IR35 and coughed up the extra tax&nic.

I am convinced that, if it hadn't been for IR35, none of these schemes would exist, and I bet the government never anticipated this either.

[ASB]

As far as I'm aware, no contractor schemes existed prior to IR35.

Oh they've been around quite a while (don't know about MP of course). Certainly back in 1983 there were a number of offshore based schemes targeting "service type" individuals. It is certainly possible that by '87 they were already exploiting DTA type schemes.

however at that time take up was no doubt very small. There were only estimated to be something in the order of 10,000 "service companies" anyway in '83.

[BrilloPad]

Look, I have absolutely no problem with the schemes provided by Montpellier or any other provider, as long as they comply with the letter of the law. It is all of our rights to minimise the tax we pay under the law. But, c’mon. Admit it. The reason you are / were on this scheme is to take home more money. There is nothing wrong with that. I do all I can to maximise my take-home pay too. If I were in a position to use one of the loan based schemes, I’d do so in a second. There is nothing wrong with that.

But to try to cloak this fact with some argument that it is a protest against an unjust tax system or irresponsible government spending is a joke. People are driven to reduce their tax liabilities through greed. Nothing else.

And again – nothing wrong with that!

I am shocked! I want to pay more tax!

It is the moral duty of every taxpayer to minimize the tax they pay. I will not get involved with evasion though. I am not convinced it is greed - but common sense. Only thing is these schemes have significant risk - the law is complicated. I knew what I was getting into and took my chances.

BP

[BolshieBastard]

Look, I have absolutely no problem with the schemes provided by Montpellier or any other provider, as long as they comply with the letter of the law. It is all of our rights to minimise the tax we pay under the law. But, c’mon. Admit it. The reason you are / were on this scheme is to take home more money. There is nothing wrong with that. I do all I can to maximise my take-home pay too. If I were in a position to use one of the loan based schemes, I’d do so in a second. There is nothing wrong with that.

But to try to cloak this fact with some argument that it is a protest against an unjust tax system or irresponsible government spending is a joke. People are driven to reduce their tax liabilities through greed. Nothing else.

And again – nothing wrong with that!

Well I hope you're not my accountant else you're getting sacked, Peter!

Your post is so full of contradictions I just dont know where to start, So, apart from saying the MP scheme DID comply with the letter of the law, as it stood when the scheme was launched, what else is there about tax management to consider?

[BrilloPad]

Well I hope you're not my accountant else you're getting sacked, Peter!

Your post is so full of contradictions I just dont know where to start, So, apart from saying the MP scheme DID comply with the letter of the law, as it stood when the scheme was launched, what else is there about tax management to consider?

FriendlyAccountant has been EXTREMELY friendly towards us. He was one of the earliest to point out that really NONE of us here are qualified to discuss the workings - probably only 50 people in the UK are. All he was saying was that we are motivated by paying the least amount of tax - I agree. I will do anything for avoidance(but will not touch evasion).

I guess now it is beyond that - the JR is about retrospective legislation. Surely this is a different issue altogether? I wonder how many barristers in the UK understand this area?