• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Everything you need to know about Flat Tax

    Originally posted by smalldog View Post
    I'd rather our tax system was really based on how successful you were rather than our current penal system, for example if it were based on successful:

    25 percent across the board:

    so someone earning 50k pays 12.5k in tax
    someone earning 100k pays 25k, they paying more in actual contributions based on them earning more but same percentage...


    but oh no.... we couldnt possibly do that could we...we have to penalise people actually doing well by increasing the threshold...

    why doesnt someone somewhere in government appreciate if we for one minute thought it was fair people wouldnt even start to try and avoid paying it...simples...Alistair and Gordie its a false economy when are you going to learn it soooooo simple its childlike, if people think its fair they will pay it and receipts will go up

    http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload...-_JUN_2006.pdf

    But if you don't want to read all of this on a Sunday, here's a summary.

    Once you distill the volumous research by those with disproportionately large foreheads, you discover this. A Flat Tax is really only beneficial for people who work hard, strive to achieve, are ambitious and believe in standing on your own 2 feet. That is to say, a minority. The problem with a Flat tax is it works well on the basis that the UK population have a collective attitude to success as say, an army of ants. But in the actual case where we have the likes of Lisa Loamy Loins knocking out a lung covered in a thin veneer of skin every 9 months whilst smoking her way through 40 rizzerles a day and watching "Ambulence Chasers Live TV" it simply isn't going to fly. How can this be? Well simply put, a Flat Tax is fair only when everyone puts in the same level of effort. And therefore, the likes of Lisa Loamy Loins and her many millions of like minded souls would not benefit.

    So, until a mandatory IQ of 107 or above, knowing that "being screwed" should refer to hard workers rather than hard-ons and that tax does not refer to something with which a couple of pieces of wood can be held together; is realised, Flat Tax is as unlikely to become any more real than the notion of a Flat Earth. In fact, the only notion of "flat" for those oxygen thieves is what they expect the Council to provide for them and their creche of lungs.

    Comment


      Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
      IMHO, no you didn't make the wrong decision.

      HMRC have lost 2 cases (Sempra & Dextra), which they haven't appealed.

      Sempra were represented by Montpelier.

      The most likely outcome is that the schemes will be closed going forward by legislation next year.
      so.. seems to me the chancellors given notice I have one year to use such a scheme , this might allow me to out more aside for my bn66 bill

      Comment


        Seasoned Contractors... Some advice if you'd be so kind.

        I may be running the risk of going off on a slight tangent here....

        But I require a small piece of advice. As an ex-military chap and one that's

        a) Not too bright
        b)A 'newbie' in the 'uber' complicated world of contracting

        Would anyone recommend me using an 'IOM offshore discretionary payment' company (i.e. Sanzar Solutions)?

        I am aware of the current pitfulls regarding BN66 - does this fall into that catergory? Also, the company keeps contacting me, offering legal protection if it does goes T.U. - would this make any difference if the dreaded HRMC started to knock at my door??

        Many thanks, and best of luck to you awaiting forthcoming decisions...

        Up the revolution!

        Comment


          Fishy?

          Originally posted by poppy01 View Post
          so.. seems to me the chancellors given notice I have one year to use such a scheme
          This is the bit that doesn't add up to me.

          By pre-announcing it a year in advance they are:

          a) encouraging people to use it

          b) giving the promoters oceans of time to devise replacement schemes

          Comment


            Attack on Loans Schemes

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



            In a related move, and in line with BN66, the government says it will stop companies from claiming "excessive" tax relief for foreign taxes by "abuse" of the UK's double taxation treaties.

            To do this, the government will deploy a package of new measures from April 1, 2010, that will include "principles-based approaches to protect Exchequer revenues."

            The notice warns of "a measure countering avoidance involving the release of loans to participators by close companies [so]...close companies will be denied a corporation tax deduction for releases or write-offs of loans to participators."

            Until now, where a loan was made to a participator and subsequently written off, a reduction against corporation tax could be claimed, explained ex-Revenue inspector Kate Cottrell.

            "This [legislation] comes into force from today," warned McMahon, also a former tax inspector.

            "[It will apply] where a director takes a loan from the company and then it is written off. Although there was a benefit and NICs to pay, it was considerably less than having to pay off the original loan."


            Seems the budget will scupper Montpelier (and others') current offshore loans schemes...

            Comment


              Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
              This is the bit that doesn't add up to me.

              By pre-announcing it a year in advance they are:

              a) encouraging people to use it

              b) giving the promoters oceans of time to devise replacement schemes
              In a perverse way it gives them leverage for making it a retrospective change !!!! as we all knew about it coming along.
              MUTS likes it Hot

              Comment


                Originally posted by TheBarCapBoyz View Post
                http://www.contractoruk.com/news/004806.html



                In a related move, and in line with BN66, the government says it will stop companies from claiming "excessive" tax relief for foreign taxes by "abuse" of the UK's double taxation treaties.

                To do this, the government will deploy a package of new measures from April 1, 2010, that will include "principles-based approaches to protect Exchequer revenues."

                The notice warns of "a measure countering avoidance involving the release of loans to participators by close companies [so]...close companies will be denied a corporation tax deduction for releases or write-offs of loans to participators."

                Until now, where a loan was made to a participator and subsequently written off, a reduction against corporation tax could be claimed, explained ex-Revenue inspector Kate Cottrell.

                "This [legislation] comes into force from today," warned McMahon, also a former tax inspector.

                "[It will apply] where a director takes a loan from the company and then it is written off. Although there was a benefit and NICs to pay, it was considerably less than having to pay off the original loan."


                Seems the budget will scupper Montpelier (and others') current offshore loans schemes...

                It is difficult to see how this relates to eg the MP scheme where the contractor is self-employed and is not a director. Also, the loans are not made by the company but by an EBT, and they are not written off, at least not yet!

                I think this collection of ex-Inspectors are talking about something else.
                Join the No To Retro Tax Campaign Now
                "Tax evasion is easy: it involves breaking the law. By tax avoidance OECD means unacceptable avoidance ... This can be contrasted with acceptable tax planning. What is critical is transparency" - Donald Johnston, Secretary-General, OECD

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Emigre View Post
                  It is difficult to see how this relates to eg the MP scheme where the contractor is self-employed and is not a director. Also, the loans are not made by the company but by an EBT, and they are not written off, at least not yet!

                  I think this collection of ex-Inspectors are talking about something else.
                  Yes you could be right. At least we hope so...

                  Isn't it also true that a lot of what is in this budget will never become law as the election will
                  be sooner than the bill can receive Royal Assent?

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Emigre View Post
                    It is difficult to see how this relates to eg the MP scheme where the contractor is self-employed and is not a director. Also, the loans are not made by the company but by an EBT, and they are not written off, at least not yet!

                    I think this collection of ex-Inspectors are talking about something else.
                    agreed

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by moira under the stairs View Post
                      In a perverse way it gives them leverage for making it a retrospective change !!!! as we all knew about it coming along.
                      really dont think they have a retro angle at all here since there is no legislation that they can "change" to "clarify".

                      Thats also probably why they have said they will be introducing "legislation from 6 April 2011 onwards"... meaning that it needs to be new legislation that has been approved through the normal consultation process and it clearly isnt ready now\hasnt gone through the normal process.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X