Originally posted by DaveB
View Post
- 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!
Argentia, anyone heard of them?
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by DaveB View PostUp until S58 came in those schemes were treated as avoidance. post S58 they are no longer regarded as avoidance and as having never been avoidance. As DR has said, they haven't attempted to class it as evasion because they would never get it past the courts. What they are doing is bringing civil cases to recover what, IIUC, they are treating as civil debts rather than tax that has been purposely evaded.
The above is spot on.Comment
-
Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View PostApologies, I jumped the gun on your post.
The above is spot on."Being nice costs nothing and sometimes gets you extra bacon" - Pondlife.Comment
-
Originally posted by Vallah View PostNot wishing to answer for DR, but I'm sure it was "correct" at the time. Trouble is, some of the income had a notional IOM tax credit applied, so it wasn't all taxed at UK rates of tax, which I think is what the revenue took exception to.
Everything to do with EBTs is taxed at UK rates, there's no IOM tax applied whatsoever. Take anything that people like LCU above say with a huge pinch of salt. Of course there are risks to any tax planning scheme, but people with alternative methods of working have a vested interest in ensuring that their scaremongering puts as many people off as possible.
Further, there was some very specific change to the finance act related to EBT's and there use a few years ago. Though that is probably a clear indication that they did function as advisors intended.
So, let us assume that the payment to an individual from the EBT is just a loan (a view I accept), if interest is paid at a commercial rate then no benefit accrues (and the interest finds it's way back to the EBT, presumably for the benefit of the employee). The question is when the loan can be repaid or written off. If there is to be a writing off then this would normally result in a tax charge to the employee at the point of write off. However, due to the drafting of the regs it is far from clear that this will actually happen if the employee is no longer employed.
Personally I would expect 2 lines of attack in terms of changes to legislation:-
- Tightening the criteria as to what make the payments into an EBT deductible.
- Expanding the rules as to what constitutes the tax charge on the employee (or former employee) at the point of write off. If they were to do this then then wouldn't need any form of retrospection to catch already existing monies.
Of course you are probably much closer to an EBT than I, if you're happy with it that is of course fine. I personally think limited use of EBTs is probably reasonably safe, but it's the usual risk/reward issue. The maximum upside is finite; the downside could potentially be anything. I don't think they are a particularly high target - yet. They may well become so though.Comment
-
Originally posted by Vallah View PostNot wishing to answer for DR, but I'm sure it was "correct" at the time. Trouble is, some of the income had a notional IOM tax credit applied, so it wasn't all taxed at UK rates of tax, which I think is what the revenue took exception to.
The structure of the loan schemes may be totally different from the DTA scheme, but the net effect is the same in terms of the tax loss to the exchequer.
And by reckoning, when it comes to shear numbers of users, the loan schemes dwarf the dta scheme by at least 2:1.
As this article says, I think the jury is still out on what HMRC might do in a year's time.
http://www.olswang.com/budget2010/budget10_ei.pdfComment
-
My view is that from next April, HMRC will deem loans from EBT's to be income. I'm pretty sure they won't be able to apply that retrospectively though. They'll just effectively shut them down, then turn their attention elsewhere. I'm not sure they'd have the stomach for another huge fight through the courts if they did try to retrosoectively enforce the change, particularly since the EBT scheme is more robust than partnership schemes that took advantage of taxation treaties.
While they clearly don't like mass marketed avoidance schemes, the fact that UK tax rates are being applied to both the basic salary AND the loan element makes it very hard for them to attack.Comment
-
Originally posted by Vallah View PostMy view is that from next April, HMRC will deem loans from EBT's to be income. I'm pretty sure they won't be able to apply that retrospectively though. They'll just effectively shut them down, then turn their attention elsewhere. I'm not sure they'd have the stomach for another huge fight through the courts if they did try to retrosoectively enforce the change, particularly since the EBT scheme is more robust than partnership schemes that took advantage of taxation treaties.
While they clearly don't like mass marketed avoidance schemes, the fact that UK tax rates are being applied to both the basic salary AND the loan element makes it very hard for them to attack."Being nice costs nothing and sometimes gets you extra bacon" - Pondlife.Comment
-
Originally posted by DaveB View PostThats what makes the BN66 fight so important. If they win that one it sets precedent for any other schemes they want to close down and treat retrospectively.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...incoming-49346
The Fraud and Avoidance section of the Specialist Investigations directorate have approximately 28013 persons with enquires open under Code Of Practice 8.
(Code of Practice 8 refers to cases of serious tax avoidance ie. schemes)Comment
-
-
So
So am I to understand that anything that might happen to these EBTs won't actually happen until April next year?
I failed to mention that myself and those that I've been talking to about Argentia aren't actually UK Citizens and are here on various levels of working visas.
For myself I will be here for the long term but some contractors (in and outside of IT) that I know are on lower visas, cannot setup Limited Companies and in some cases, will be leaving the UK before April next year.
In such cases, if they took a spin and ran the risk with EBTs and then left the UK permanently before April next year, would they still be at risk of the UK Gvt chasing them around the world looking to apply retrospective taxes and penalties should EBTs be deemed as always having been illegal?Last edited by nfoote; 20 April 2010, 09:02.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment