BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[BolshieBastard]

Perhaps you should go back and read the post that I was answering, then you might actually understand what I said.

Also, the objective is to avoid a pointless, disruptive and expensive three year investigation. One way of doing that is to pay the tax. I didn't say it was a good idea.

Perhaps you should read what this thread is about?

[PlaneSailing]

DonkeyRhubarb 110
SantaClaus 60
smalldog 39
KiwiGuy 36
bananarepublic 30
Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing 28
sgee 28
Emigre 23
nuffsaid 23
PlaneSailing 21
BolshieBastard 21
....
BlasterBates 1
Zippy 1

PlaneSailing 22

[SantaClaus]

DonkeyRhubarb 110
SantaClaus 60
smalldog 39
KiwiGuy 36
bananarepublic 30
Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing 28
......

Que?

[SantaClaus]

Sigh...

The simple answer to IR35 is declare yourself caught. Then either operate YourCo as per the IR35 rules or use an umbrella. The intelligent answer if you think you're outside is get insurance so you don't deal with it by yourself (there's around 4,500 people have managed that bit wuite successfully).

Those are the commercially valid options, all three of which establish your tax position. Stop kidding yourself that anyone outside these boards will accept your argument.

Ok, so you've got insurance, the Revenue come knocking and deem you as caught by IR35. The insurance pays for legal fees to defend you.

What's different to that and Montpelier's top legal team defending us right up to the ECHR?

Or am I missing something?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I think Mal is right about the situation today. IR35 is a lame duck, and Ltd is a pretty safe option, especially with insurance cover.

Things were a lot less certain back in 2001, when many of us joined the scheme.

[Toocan]

Sigh...

The simple answer to IR35 is declare yourself caught. Then either operate YourCo as per the IR35 rules or use an umbrella. The intelligent answer if you think you're outside is get insurance so you don't deal with it by yourself (there's around 4,500 people have managed that bit wuite successfully).

Those are the commercially valid options, all three of which establish your tax position. Stop kidding yourself that anyone outside these boards will accept your argument.

That's a bit harsh - the situation in 2001 was not nearly as clear as it is today. One's actions have to be judged in the time they happened. Some people switched back to a Ltd Co once the law was 'clarified' by case-law. That speaks volumes...

[centurian]

Ok, so you've got insurance, the Revenue come knocking and deem you as caught by IR35. The insurance pays for legal fees to defend you.

What's different to that and Montpelier's top legal team defending us right up to the ECHR?

Or am I missing something?

Because some IR35 insurance policies will pay the actual tax liability as well.

Admittedly there are a few caveats, so it is debatable as to how effective the insurance would turn out to be, but it gives a bit of extra security and buffer.

[malvolio]

Because some IR35 insurance policies will pay the actual tax liability as well.

Admittedly there are a few caveats, so it is debatable as to how effective the insurance would turn out to be, but it gives a bit of extra security and buffer.

Both QDOS and Abbey are pretty certain they will honour any claims made. AFAIK there haven't been any to date...

As for the position in 2001, I totally agree since I was one of those trying to get that clarity (and we still haven't, which shows what a carp piece of legilsation it was). However, you can't use that lack of clarity to defend the decision to use a non-UK based solution when there are at least the three totally safe solutions out there that I listed earllier, you'll have to come up with something more convincing. That's all I'm saying.

The actual schemes' legality is a whole other question. MP was clearly a bit more marginal than most, but that does not excuse retrospection , no matter how it's wrapped and presented.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

However, you can't use that lack of clarity to defend the decision to use a non-UK based solution when there are at least the three totally safe solutions out there that I listed earllier, you'll have to come up with something more convincing. That's all I'm saying.

Insurance products weren't around back in 2001.

Many accountants at the time, including mine, were pushing people to just accept IR35.

In this atmosphere, the MP scheme didn't seem like such a bad idea.

[SantaClaus]

Both QDOS and Abbey are pretty certain they will honour any claims made. AFAIK there haven't been any to date...

As for the position in 2001, I totally agree since I was one of those trying to get that clarity (and we still haven't, which shows what a carp piece of legilsation it was). However, you can't use that lack of clarity to defend the decision to use a non-UK based solution when there are at least the three totally safe solutions out there that I listed earllier, you'll have to come up with something more convincing. That's all I'm saying.

The actual schemes' legality is a whole other question. MP was clearly a bit more marginal than most, but that does not excuse retrospection , no matter how it's wrapped and presented.

Not even sure why you are posting on here. This forum is to help people who have been affected by the retrospective tax.