BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[phileds]

the sudden rush is to get this monkey off their back asap, this legislation is bad press in anyones book including HMRC and its too close to lots of other tax related debates. Sooner they close this the sooner they can bury it in the archives and get it off peoples minds..they also probably want to resolve it prior to having a new paymaster in the tories scrutinising their every move, they will be fully aware the tories didnt agree with this in principle.

I don't think HMRC give a hoot about bad press (when do they ever get good press?!) or indeed their reputation such as it is. I'd suspect, on the contrary, they'd be quite happy to let things drift on for years - witness the Marks and Spencer's VAT claim, which took 13 years to go through to eventual victory for M&S, over a mere £3.5 million pounds.

Sadly, they have little to lose apart perhaps from the salaries of a few bean counters and legal tarts for occasional work.

[phileds]

I agree.

The case will take several years typically. Its likely to go more quickly as my HMRC insiders are saying that they want to pursue this quickly.

You have to consider another scenario ladies and gents that should HMRC lose ultimately, then its VERY likely they will legislate again....

What I can positively say is that I personally know 3 QC's in prestigious London Chambers who are all engaged on various matters around this case. They are in addition to the ones that DonkeyR states at the top of this thread...

Sorry, have to laugh - I trust the law even less now than I ever did - and three QCs do not make law, even if they are based in London. Though I'm sure their positive opinion is welcome.

Unfortunately it counts for nought. As I've discovered, to my naive disbelief, expert Tax Counsel's opinion saying a tax avoidance scheme "looks OK" from a legal viewpoint confers no guarantees whatsoever to users of the scheme.

[portseven]

A future fair for all


Errr, there's that word again "fair" and oddly the other word "all".

I saw this too and had to laugh, I think NL have a strange idea of what's fair. And if they are promising a 'fair' future for all then based on their track record in fairness, I worry for everyone. I wonder if it would benefit the public on how their idea of fairness has been for the IT Contracting community!

[smalldog]

I saw this too and had to laugh, I think NL have a strange idea of what's fair. And if they are promising a 'fair' future for all then based on their track record in fairness, I worry for everyone. I wonder if it would benefit the public on how their idea of fairness has been for the IT Contracting community!

dont worry we are apparently 1.5 mil strong and thats only freelancers and doesnt include all the people who have felt the need to go perm due to NL policies. we have a much bigger voice than NL realise and its not a voice in their support. i think they have under estimated us, to give you some perspective tone won by 2.3m votes in 2001 and that was a landslide! poor gordie so short sighted, do you know anyone who works in IT who will vote for him, I dont

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_2001

ive just gone onto their website and vented my views, why not do the same, rather than tell them why I am labour I told them why Im not, got nothing to lose:

http://www.labour.org.uk/future-fair-for-all

[BolshieBastard]

Apologies if this has already been posted but is this another bit of retrospection coming up here?




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle7034902.ece

THEY earn hundreds of thousands of pounds a week, showing off their skills in packed stadiums and in front of a worldwide audience of millions.

Now the gilded lifestyles of Premier League footballers are under attack from a new set of opponents — a team of modestly paid civil servants based in a nondescript office block in the West Midlands.

Some 20 tax inspectors from HM Revenue & Customs’ (HMRC) special civil investigations unit in Solihull are writing to top players who receive part of their income from their clubs in return for “image rights”.

The arrangements have until now allowed players legally to avoid paying an estimated £100m a year in tax.

The letters advise the players that their affairs are being investigated and that they may need to hand over copies of accounts, contracts, receipts and other documents to the Revenue.

Their agents have cried foul. “Many of these arrangements have been in place for years and suddenly the Revenue has got a problem with them,” said one agent, who represents a player who received one of the letters shortly before Christmas.

[SantaClaus]

dont worry we are apparently 1.5 mil strong and thats only freelancers and doesnt include all the people who have felt the need to go perm due to NL policies. we have a much bigger voice than NL realise and its not a voice in their support. i think they have under estimated us, to give you some perspective tone won by 2.3m votes in 2001 and that was a landslide! poor gordie so short sighted, do you know anyone who works in IT who will vote for him, I dont

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_2001

ive just gone onto their website and vented my views, why not do the same, rather than tell them why I am labour I told them why Im not, got nothing to lose:

http://www.labour.org.uk/future-fair-for-all

"Tell us why you're Labour". Well, I just couldnt resist!

I'll tell you why I'm NOT Labour. Gordon Brown has taken the word "fair" and completely bastardised it.

Is it fair to penalise taxpayers who use legal tax avoidance measures with retrospective taxation, demanding back taxes and interest for the past 7 years?

Is it fair to bankrupt those people and their families?

Is it fair to waste billions bailing out the banks at the taxpayers expense.

Is it fair to pour billions down the drain on an inefficient public sector whilst Britain risks it's credit rating?

Is it fair to drive business and entrepreneurs out of the country with punitive taxes?

Is it fair that MP's stick their snouts in the expenses trough whilst millions of individuals are losing their homes and businesses are closing down?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

CharteredTaxAdvisor

CharteredTaxAdvisor
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3
Has contact with HMRC insiders
Knows 3 QCs working on the case

Could be genuine but suggest we treat anything they say with big pinch of salt.

If this person wants to contact me I can be emailed at
[email protected]

This re-directs to my personal email, which I don't put on here because of SPAM.

[bombaycat]

dont worry we are apparently 1.5 mil strong and thats only freelancers and doesnt include all the people who have felt the need to go perm due to NL policies. we have a much bigger voice than NL realise and its not a voice in their support. i think they have under estimated us, to give you some perspective tone won by 2.3m votes in 2001 and that was a landslide! poor gordie so short sighted, do you know anyone who works in IT who will vote for him, I dont

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_2001

ive just gone onto their website and vented my views, why not do the same, rather than tell them why I am labour I told them why Im not, got nothing to lose:

http://www.labour.org.uk/future-fair-for-all

Is that also counting our dependents and families who might possibly also be strongly on our side? If not, it would be a huge number of people taking a dim view of their actions on this, possibly 3-4 million people! My mum is livid about all this and she always used to take the other side to me when I complained of something not being fair....so that is saying something.

[centurian]

Apologies if this has already been posted but is this another bit of retrospection coming up here?

Some 20 tax inspectors from HM Revenue & Customs’ (HMRC) special civil investigations unit in Solihull are writing to top players who receive part of their income from their clubs in return for “image rights”.

Not sure any retrospection is required. Seems a case of IR35.

Basically they are reclassifying a portion of their income as "image rights" and diverting it to an intermediary company and paying dividends to avoid national insurance.

Their accountants will probably try and argue that their "image" is separate from their "job" of running around a football field and isn't a supply for services.

However, the footballers will have to demonstrate that the use of an intermediary is a legitimate business structure - not simply one designed to avoid PAYE. Being paid PAYE by the same company at the same time won't help them. They will have to demonstrate all the usual D&C, MOO issues ets. regarding their "image". ROS will be a tad tricky.

[Toocan]

Scheme providers in the news

A biased write up on tax avoidance. I notice Montpelier is mentioned but they get the details of the scheme wrong and completely forget to mention that HMRC knew all of the details from the start.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...ance-crackdown