Loans from EBTs and other Trusts

[v8gaz]

So. My accountants view is that if you enter into an arrangement and you have an indication that it is legal from a QC or even, to a certain extent, the supplier; then as an average joe you have sought, and received, professional advice.

But - did you read the opinion? Were you even offered the opportunity? Was it from Robert Venables who has stated publicly that his name is being used to promote schemes that he has never been asked to review? Being told that everything is ok is NOT due diligence.

[stonecircle]

So you would advocate the abolishment of ISA's and the retrospective application of tax then?

No, ISAs are designed to encourage savings. Their only purpose isn't to avoid tax.

Or the retrospective application of tax to your pension contributions?

No, pensions are designed to encourage saving for old age. Their only purpose isn't to avoid tax.

Had the correct process been followed and a tribunal ruled against us I think the majority on this forum would have taken it in good grace and moved on. We were denied that right hence the action that followed. Retrospective taxation is not the answer.

I'm not here to crow, and I don't know the specifics of your case. But unlike freedom of speech, when it comes to retrospective taxation, the maxim "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" is absolutely true. Without retrospective tax, as we have seen these past decades, it is impossible to tax effectively. It is simply impossible to legislate against every conceivable future way to avoid paying tax. Very large sophisticated law and accountancy firms will always find loopholes otherwise, and the public exchequer will always lose the arms race. Retrospective taxation is the only way. If If your only business is the avoidance of tax, you have no rightful business.

[smalldog]

No, ISAs are designed to encourage savings. Their only purpose isn't to avoid tax.



No, pensions are designed to encourage saving for old age. Their only purpose isn't to avoid tax.



I'm not here to crow, and I don't know the specifics of your case. But unlike freedom of speech, when it comes to retrospective taxation, the maxim "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" is absolutely true. Without retrospective tax, as we have seen these past decades, it is impossible to tax effectively. Very large sophisticated law and accountancy firms will always find loopholes otherwise, and the public exchequer will always lose the arms race. It is simply impossible to legislate against every conceivable future way to avoid paying tax. Retrospective taxation is the only way. If If your only business is the avoidance of tax, you have no rightful business.

Excuse me cojak just want to make one point, not carry on an argument.

Stonecircle, what you dont seem to appreciate is that back in 2001 may people myself included were forced and I really do mean forced by the govt. to decide to either suck it up and pay more than the equivalent employee on the same salary in tax due to IR35, as you can imagine nobody was keen on that idea. Or go Perm, or join an IR35 avoidance scheme. I chose the later as at that time nobody was aware that there would be flex in the IR35 rules to enable you to work Ltd outside the legislation. Trust me with hindsight I would NEVER HAVE GOT INTO THIS SCHEME, now I know there is a way to trade Ltd outside IR35. But as has been said, Hindsight is a wonderous thing.

Should retro tax exist, in my view no, not ever. Simplify the tax system to make loopholes non-existent, plug any holes you do find, but a simpler system will make them easier to spot. As soon as any are found, change them prospectively and not wait some 8 years to change the rules backwards as in the case here.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Is switching from an Umbrella to Ltd tax avoidance?

Just asking.

[lucozade]

I don't know the specifics of your case

You demonstrate a great level of ignorance yet think it's perfectly valid to carry on trying to argue your point.

Please do shut up and go away. Your NOT welcome here.

[SantaClaus]

You demonstrate a great level of ignorance yet think it's perfectly valid to carry on trying to argue your point.

Please do shut up and go away. Your NOT welcome here.

Yep, another smug armchair politician with the internet to hide behind.
He wouldn't say half of what he has to any of us in person.

[tractor]

...

You demonstrate a great level of ignorance yet think it's perfectly valid to carry on trying to argue your point.

Please do shut up and go away. Your NOT welcome here.

Au contraire, StoneSockie is very welcome.

Clearly they are too thick to follow advice, Mods need to snip this part of the thread to General or the other discussion thread so people can be robust in their reply without derailing this thread.

FTAOD I am not affected by retro taxation (yet).

[stonecircle]

Excuse me cojak just want to make one point, not carry on an argument.

Stonecircle, what you dont seem to appreciate is that back in 2001 may people myself included were forced and I really do mean forced by the govt. to decide to either suck it up and pay more than the equivalent employee on the same salary in tax due to IR35, as you can imagine nobody was keen on that idea. Or go Perm, or join an IR35 avoidance scheme. I chose the later as at that time nobody was aware that there would be flex in the IR35 rules to enable you to work Ltd outside the legislation. Trust me with hindsight I would NEVER HAVE GOT INTO THIS SCHEME, now I know there is a way to trade Ltd outside IR35. But as has been said, Hindsight is a wonderous thing.

I do have sympathy for your personal situation as it was at the confused outset of IR35, and you were badly advised. But ultimately you took an action that was exclusively to avoid tax. No other purpose. I hope common sense prevails you are treated with compassion. But with £13 trillion squirreled away in tax havens, people have had enough of kleptocracy. That number deserves a repeat THIRTEEN TRILLION POUNDS (£13tn hoard hidden from taxman by global elite | Business | The Guardian). Arguments against retrospective taxation pale into insignificance next to it.

Should retro tax exist, in my view no, not ever. Simplify the tax system to make loopholes non-existent, plug any holes you do find, but a simpler system will make them easier to spot. As soon as any are found, change them prospectively and not wait some 8 years to change the rules backwards as in the case here.

I think you're being utopian. The world will never be sufficiently simple for tax loopholes to cease to exist. While I agree reducing tax complexity is always a virtue to be uphold, binning reams of statute is far more difficult than instituting a simple retrospective rule: if the only purpose of your action was to avoid tax, then regardless of the letter of the law, you are a tax evader.

[SantaClaus]

Au contraire, StoneSockie is very welcome.

Clearly they are too thick to follow advice, Mods need to snip this part of the thread to General or the other discussion thread so people can be robust in their reply without derailing this thread.

FTAOD I am not affected by retro taxation (yet).

Edit: sorry I misread your message, Tractor. But I still meant what I said about a private forum.

If this continues, I will open a forum on the NTRT website for members only.

[smalldog]

I do have sympathy for your personal situation as it was at the confused outset of IR35, and you were badly advised. But ultimately you took an action that was exclusively to avoid tax. No other purpose. I hope common sense prevails you are treated with compassion. But with £13 trillion squirreled away in tax havens, people have had enough of kleptocracy. That number deserves a repeat THIRTEEN TRILLION POUNDS (£13tn hoard hidden from taxman by global elite | Business | The Guardian). Arguments against retrospective taxation pale into insignificance next to it.



I think you're being utopian. The world will never be sufficiently simple for tax loopholes to cease to exist. While I agree reducing tax complexity is always a virtue to be uphold, binning reams of statute is far more difficult than instituting a simple retrospective rule: if the only purpose of your action was to avoid tax, then regardless of the letter of the law, you are a tax evader.

Obviously dont agree with that bit, evasion is non-declaration and hiding income from taxation, not at all the case here.

However, I think there needs to be a distinction between someone with £10 million in a swiss account avoiding tax, potentially evading, and someone who sought to not be caught by a govt legislation IR35 that was considered by pretty much everyone other than the govt. as unfair, but carried out full declaration to the authorities on SA's each year of what they were doing as is my case. There are countless legislative measures of which groups and the GP attempt to avoid, look at the poll tax as an example. Was I badly advised, probably in my slight ignorance some 15 years ago, would I have chosen LTD with hindsight, GOD YES!

In terms of Utopia, even Lin Holmer said yesterday they need to implement a simpler system, so at least start that process and stop saying its all too hard.

Sorry Mods' my last post on this subject....