Loans from EBTs and other Trusts

[cojak]

What did I say about a civilised manner?

I will let that pass with a warning, but if you don't like being challenged don't post in this thread.

[eek]

What did I say about a civilised manner?

I will let that pass with a warning, but if you don't like being challenged don't post in this thread.

Well technically what SC said is a criminal offence if said in front of a policeman it would result in an arrest. If I said the same at a clientco I would expect to be shown the door so I regard it as well beyond acceptable.... But then again I have always imagined SC to be like Nick Griffin (I'll get back to that in a second).

Simply put that analogy shows why both campaigns are destined to die a death resulting in many innocent(ish) people paying large amounts of money to HMRC. The simple fact is that if the only people visibly supporting you are the Nick Griffin's of the world people don't so much stop and listen to what is being said, rather they either don't listen or worse look at those complaining and actively support the other option.

[cojak]

Now you are insulting SC to provoke a response, eek.

Take care, because I can see your breadcrumbs...

[eek]

Now you are insulting SC to provoke a response, eek.

Take care, because I can see your breadcrumbs...

I'm not actually as he said he won't respond.

This is more a warning to everyone else.

Are the people representing you actually helping your cause, or does their tone, attitude, appearance and previous campaigns result in reactions the polar opposite of what you hoped for (knowing a few MP's and having discussed SN66 with them privately I can confirm that that has been the case).

Its very hard to change someones mind when all they see is someone they think of as a tax avoider trying to avoid paying tax they believe should be due. The "this is a tax avoider (I cannot help them as what will the papers say)" thoughts override the validity of the rest of the argument...

My inkling is that the people leading the NTRT campaign are actually the wrong people to be doing so. And if those people are seen to be lobbying against the immediate payment rules many people will instantly make their mind up to support the rules regardless of the highly dubious nature of them. As they lobby their "friendly" supporters, they will instantly push other MPs into the other camp....

[DonkeyRhubarb]

eek,

You make some valid points.

One of the reasons we hired the professional lobbying company Whitehouse was to try and do things the correct way. But I suspect you may be right that we have alienated some MPs along the way.

As it is, NTRT won't be lobbying hard against the new proposals because it's not clear that they will even affect our members since the BN66 schemes pre-date DOTAS.

It is for the likes of the EBT contractors, who are directly in the firing line, to step up and voice their opposition to it.

What we will do is raise our concerns with the professional bodies like CIOT, ICAEW, who will no doubt respond to the consultation anyway.

Its very hard to change someones mind when all they see is someone they think of as a tax avoider trying to avoid paying tax they believe should be due.

No, it's nigh on impossible!

DR

[Alba]

One rule for the rich and the famous

I had posted this interesting article on the wrong link, but think it is something worth discussing! The question has long been asked that if we loose we should pay taxes based on a LTD CO basis.

What is being done is unjust, and there is still one rule for them and one for the rest, which cannot be allowed to carry on. The people of this country has had its heads in the sand for too long.............................whilst you can argue that many will not care, by enacting these laws, it will set precedents across the whole of our legal system, which will have dire consequences for all.

A question that has been asked many times, but no clear guidance has been given to us, unless of course you are famous:

COMEDIAN JIMMY CARR is to pay around £500,000 in tax after leaving the controversial K2 tax avoidance scheme that left him paying a rate of just 1%.

As a result, his company is now paying full corporation tax. The legal, but infamously "morally repugnant" scheme worked by transferring salaries into a Jersey-based trust, which lent investors back the money. As the loan could technically be recalled, it was not subject to income tax. It sheltered £168m from the taxman annually.

As a result of the revelations, Carr became the face of the government's battle against tax avoidance, with the prime minister branding the comedian's tax affairs "dodgy" during a state visit to Mexico.

But the comic's latest accounts for his business, FN Good Ltd, for the year ending April 2013, reveal it made a £2.5m profit, the Mirror reports. The tax bill is based on 23% of his earnings.

His tweeted apology at the time read: "I met with a financial adviser and he said, ‘do you want to pay less tax? It's totally legal'. I said ‘yes'. I now realise I've made a terrible error of judgment."

[cojak]

Impact on IR35 investigations?

Someone in the HMRC thread mentioned that the actions in the consultation paper could include Section 9A TMA 1970 investigations.

Most tax advisors say that these generally preclude COP8/9 investigations, but could IR35 investigations be caught up in this?

[eek]

Someone in the HMRC thread mentioned that the actions in the consultation paper could include Section 9A TMA 1970 investigations.

Most tax advisors say that these generally preclude COP8/9 investigations, but could IR35 investigations be caught up in this?

Nope, don't listen to people who are panicking and try to scare others into fighting their lost battle for them...

[cojak]

Nope, don't listen to people who are panicking and try to scare others into fighting their lost battle for them...

Fair enoughski.

[mudskipper]

Nope, don't listen to people who are panicking and try to scare others into fighting their lost battle for them...

What makes you think they couldn't?

Whatever the rights and wrongs of EBT, this proposal seems wrong to me - the emphasis should be on pursuing the owed tax in a timely manner so that these things don't drag on for years.