BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[PlaneSailing]

Don't mess with pensioners

Since Labour has a majority on the Finance Bill Committee, it won't make any difference.

However, I am checking with the JCHR to see if the retrospective "repo" legislation has been referred to them.

This has a lot of similarities with our case in that it is a retrospective "clarification" of existing anti-avoidance legislation, although it doesn't extend back as many years.

If this gets passed then it may also end up in the Courts.

I'm sure they didn't speak to the JCHR as 'stealing' pensions is
probably not a vote winner....

http://www.pru.co.uk/guides_tools/ar...rospective-ta/

[Squicker]

So...As announced in budget yesterday they are shutting down the EBT and Loan tax avoidance schemes; but not with retrospective effect.

Whatthe F****K ?????? What about them paying a 'fair share' and not acting in the 'spirit of the law'.

Surely this should be used in court to back up our defense. We are being treated differently to every other tax payer and being made an example of.

Yes, I read the whole thing and just sat there bemused. I've completely given up of trying to make any sense of what the **** HMRC are up to. All I want to be able to do is ply my trade as well as I can and as simply as I can.

If the govt said, "it's 25% tax across the board", then fine. I'd accept that. But all they seem to do is make things more and more uncertain every year.

I know what these ******* worker bee tulip for brains drones sat at their brown desks in their beige suits with their beige lives and their beiges wives (being given a good seeing to by the nextdoor neighbour while their clownish husbands are at work drafting more and more clownish rules) want...They want us all on PAYE so they don't have to think and add up and we can be tracked and taxed cradle to grave. And I do mean cradle, that'll be next!

Retrospectively you are to be taxed from the day of conception because you were of course using public resource, albeit via your already taxed mother!

[Toocan]

Ebt

I think we need to see the draft legislation on EBT's. The possition as it stands makes no sense. By announcing that they will be closed down from April 2011 HMRC have basically said "you can use them for the next year" - ie go for it.

Does that sound reasonable to you? This is the same HMRC that enacted s.58 and keep in mind that the amount of tax 'lost' through EBT schemes is far higher....

There is more to this that meets the eye.

Mark my words, there is a sting in the tail here - we just don't know what it is yet. I suspect it may have something to do with the outstanding loan.

[TAF4]

The sting in the tail is that the legislation will be enacted next year but will apply retrospectively back to the announcement date. Hector will argue that 'you were warned!'

Seems obvious to me.

[smalldog]

here

hence my quote from earlier today:

So how come we get retrospectively hit and everyone else seems to get a nice prospective piece of legislation and even a years grace to consider what they do about it!!!!! why are we being treated so ridiculously harshly??

http://www.contractoruk.com/news/004806.html

there MUST be a point of law to answer here somewhere surely, proportionality perhaps..."there is and dont call me shirley" :-)

[centurian]

I was thinking of going LTD but with the BN66 fiasco and a potentially large bill, I'm more encouraged to get every penny I can.
So HMRC actions are actually encouraging me to pursue avoidance schemes.
I went to MonP because of the uncertain-ess of IR35.

When will they learn ?
I just want a method of operating that is fair, clear and certain.
LTD companies still carry the spectre of IR35 investigations with them.

There is such a scheme - PAYE.

Sorry, but if you want a completely risk free approach, you're simply going to have to pay the "full" rate of tax in the first place.

All of these avoidance schemes attracts some degree of risk - it's a case of being as well informed as possible and making the best decision that fits your risk attitude.

[swede]

There is such a scheme - PAYE.

Sorry, but if you want a completely risk free approach, you're simply going to have to pay the "full" rate of tax in the first place.

All of these avoidance schemes attracts some degree of risk - it's a case of being as well informed as possible and making the best decision that fits your risk attitude.

I could not agree less. It's the prerogativeof any intelligent person to minimise their TAX liabilities. Companies do it, peers do it. Why would you willingly give up your hard earnt cash without question, or trying to reduce your liability?

If you abide by the laws applicable at the time, then there should be no risk.

[johnnyguitar]

There is such a scheme - PAYE.

Sorry, but if you want a completely risk free approach, you're simply going to have to pay the "full" rate of tax in the first place.

All of these avoidance schemes attracts some degree of risk - it's a case of being as well informed as possible and making the best decision that fits your risk attitude.

The only risk-free way to run your LTD company is to declare yourself yourself caught by IR35.
Even if it's clear that you are not, you can't risk getting dragged through the courts over several years and then have some numpty who has no idea how you work tell you to pay up.
But, put your hands up and you end up paying employee's NI + tax PLUS employer's NI - that's the bit I never understood - if you're to be classed as an employee, how come you have to pay up as an employer too ?
It ends up with you paying 'more than your fair share' !

If they would only establish some risk-free, clear rules on how to set up as an independant contractor, I'll sign up. But I'm not paying more than the average joe just because they can't clarify.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Retrospective "repo" legislation

I heard back from the JCHR, and they have not been asked by anyone to look at the legislation.

And there is probably a very good reason for this...

I found this note which goes into more detail on the legislation and it appears to be a Padmore-style measure designed to prevent firms gaining a windfall rather than a retrospective tax levy. Just as in Padmore, the legislation is in response to a High Court decision which had an unexpected side-effect.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/news/fst-background.pdf

1.2 The recent High Court case involved the tax treatment of deemed manufactured payments, but the decision has cast doubt on the tax treatment of real manufactured payments for both payers and recipients. The decision could result in payers being able to claim additional deductions for tax purposes that bear no relation to their economic position, and recipients being taxable on amounts in excess of their actual income.

1.15 If retrospective legislation in respect of real manufactured interest payments is not introduced, some companies that have made commercial profits will be able to claim to reduce or eliminate their tax liabilities by reference to purely notional losses. If such claims were to succeed this would represent an unfair windfall and the resulting loss in tax receipts would have to be borne by other taxpayers.

[Vallah]

I could not agree less. It's the prerogativeof any intelligent person to minimise their TAX liabilities. Companies do it, peers do it. Why would you willingly give up your hard earnt cash without question, or trying to reduce your liability?

If you abide by the laws applicable at the time, then there should be no risk.

I agree. A person's right to organise their affairs as to minimise their tax liability is a fundamental one. While there is tax legislation, there will always be ways to pay less. Just because HMRC want everybody to pay full whack, it doesn't mean that we have to.

I await the new legislation with interest. I assume they'll just be making loans from EBT's fully chargeable.