Offshore Option

[malvolio]

Generally agencies won't engage workers on a "self employed" basis because they are afraid that if they place a worker on a long term contract then they may eventually claim employment rights (sick, holiday, redundancy etc).

Workers are pretty much forced to either form a limited company or join an umbrella.

Or am I missing something here?

Nope. S134c as was, now replaced by S44-47 ITEPA 2003 makes the intermediary liable for any unpaid taxes. I've long argued that IR35 is unnecessary if they replaced S44-47 with something that made the worker personally liable for unpaid taxes. Then we could all work as Schedule D Self Employed and 90% of the legal hoohah around IR35 would vanish overnight.

But that's way too simple...

[NotAllThere]

...But that's way too simple...

I guess they thought it easier to catch one big intermediary than lots of little sole-traders. They also get the agencies to act as policeman.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Nope. S134c as was, now replaced by S44-47 ITEPA 2003 makes the intermediary liable for any unpaid taxes. I've long argued that IR35 is unnecessary if they replaced S44-47 with something that made the worker personally liable for unpaid taxes. Then we could all work as Schedule D Self Employed and 90% of the legal hoohah around IR35 would vanish overnight.

But that's way too simple...

That's why we've got the OTS Mal.............................apparantly

[Vallah]

Be
Here's some specific questions.

1. How do I know that I'll be given the loan when I ask for it?
2. How do I know that I'll not have to repay the loan?
3. If I get investigated, it's nice to know you'll pay my legal fees - but if I lose, will you pay the tax (and penalties) that I suddenly owe because your QC's advice turned out to be utterly worthless?

Can't speak for Geoff, but our answers would be:

1) Because the trust is run by independent trustees who are legally obliged to act in your best interests. it isn't us as a company making loans.
2) Because the way the trust deed is written means that everything down has to be in your best interest as a beneficiary.
3) No, but we don't believe our QC's advice is worthless, and in 5 years nobody has had to pay any extra tax. We firnly believe that EBTs can't be taxed retrospectively, and HMRC has never shown any desire to do so.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

A bit of humour

HMRC shouldn't really complain about tax avoidance.

After all, a huge chunk of their budget and an awful lot of civil service jobs depend on it.

You could almost say they have a vested interest in it flourishing.

In nature, I think this is what's known as a symbiotic relationship.

[Old Greg]

3) No, but we don't believe our QC's advice is worthless, and in 5 years nobody has had to pay any extra tax. We firnly believe that EBTs can't be taxed retrospectively, and HMRC has never shown any desire to do so.

Then, why don't you increase your fees by a couple of percent and insure your clients against any taxes they have to pay to HMRC? Sounds like you'd be onto a winner.

[geoff from contracta IOM]

Can't speak for Geoff, but our answers would be:

1) Because the trust is run by independent trustees who are legally obliged to act in your best interests. it isn't us as a company making loans.
2) Because the way the trust deed is written means that everything down has to be in your best interest as a beneficiary.
3) No, but we don't believe our QC's advice is worthless, and in 5 years nobody has had to pay any extra tax. We firnly believe that EBTs can't be taxed retrospectively, and HMRC has never shown any desire to do so.

1) agreed with Vallah perhaps it might even be to your benefit to make a loan to say your daughter for a car ?

2) Same as Vallah with a few tweaks principal the same

3) Our QC is one of the most eminent tax counsels in the UK not really good for business to hand out poor advice

[NotAllThere]

1 & 2: A loan that is guaranteed to be never asked to be repaid is not a loan. My kids might well ask me for a loan, and I'd act in their best interest by not giving them one. Similarly, I might view that repayment of said loan is in their best interest. Who decides what my best interest is? And how can I be sure it coincides with what I think my best interest is?
3. So the worst that can happen to your QC is that he suffers damage to his reputation. Who is this mysterious and, so far, anonymous QC?

[Old Greg]

3) Our QC is one of the most eminent tax counsels in the UK not really good for business to hand out poor advice

So is your QC's advice caveated or unequivocal?

[geoff from contracta IOM]

1 & 2: A loan that is guaranteed to be never asked to be repaid is not a loan. My kids might well ask me for a loan, and I'd act in their best interest by not giving them one. Similarly, I might view that repayment of said loan is in their best interest. Who decides what my best interest is? And how can I be sure it coincides with what I think my best interest is?
3. So the worst that can happen to your QC is that he suffers damage to his reputation. Who is this mysterious and, so far, anonymous QC?

Ultimately the trustees decide what is in your best interest, the reality is whatever you deem to be in your best interest they will also. On the point about the QC I would say damage to your reputation, as a barrister is going to have a pretty negative effect on your earning potential ? Unlike most other providers we actually give genuine interested parties sight of our legal opinion ( why not we paid enough for it )