Originally posted by screwthis
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!
BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Topic is closed
-
-
HMRC hear too much here
Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View PostI am starting to wonder if we've got the right brief.
Is he ramming the point home hard enough because the courts don't seem to be getting it.
The plain and simple fact is that the Padmore legislation was specifically drafted not to do what BN66 does ie. tax anyone.Lord Clyde in 1929: ‘No man is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or to his property as to enable the Revenue to put the largest possible shovel into his stores. The Revenue is not slow to take every advantage which is open to it under the taxing statutes for the purpose of depleting the taxpayer’s pocket. And the taxpayer is entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Revenue.’Comment
-
Originally posted by bananarepublic View PostTo be honest I have not been following this thread too closely. However, I am shocked by the naivety of some people. It seems as if some people always believe what they are told (or think they were told)! Whether it is some comment about not expecting to be investigated or being told not to buy a CTD or whatever.
The simple fact is that you signed your earnings over to an offshore company in the hope of getting a tax advantage. What were you expecting?
Whatever Montpeliers faults they did not run for the hills at the first sign of trouble. I believe that they have always operated on the basis of QC advice and in good faith. I don't believe that anybody could reasonably have anticipated the retrospection. I believe that Montpelier were always open and honest to the fact that the scheme may fail.
In so far as there is hope our best bet is sticking it out with Montpelier.
Sadly it will fall on a lot of deaf ears.Comment
-
Originally posted by bananarepublic View PostWe are not being taxed on the basis of PAYE. I haven't seen HMRC state we were caught by IR35. I believe that HMRC have simply ignored the trust and have taxed us as if we were members of the partnership directly so are being taxed on that basis.
Either way it amounts to the same thing i.e. employer's and employee's NI.
Has the possibility of attempting to submit as self employed been explored or is there a specific reason this won't work? I guess it's too late to claim we would have otherwise used a ltd company as we have gone down the trust route and there is no company for those years..Comment
-
Originally posted by screwthis View PostCan you be our QC at the SC?
Agree.... Ask the right questions!Comment
-
Lighter Note
Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View PostI am starting to wonder if we've got the right brief.
Is he ramming the point home hard enough because the courts don't seem to be getting it.
The plain and simple fact is that the Padmore legislation was specifically drafted not to do what BN66 does ie. tax anyone.
the other day I was explaining the situation to my teenage son, summarising the basics about how under this scheme we disclosed all our dealings anaually in our self-assessments, the IR did nothing for 7 years, how the IR knowing that we could not be successfully challenged under the existing law persuaded the government to change the law backwards and are now trying to reclaim the money for these 7 years (plus interest) and in the process bankrupt people. His reply made me laugh for the first time since Monday:
'Gee Dad, your lawyer must be really $hite!'Comment
-
Originally posted by bananarepublic View PostWe are not being taxed on the basis of PAYE. I haven't seen HMRC state we were caught by IR35. I believe that HMRC have simply ignored the trust and have taxed us as if we were members of the partnership directly so are being taxed on that basis.Comment
-
how is this possible ?
Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View PostLook at the date on this HMRC internal document. It was published before any tax returns had even been filed.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...Issue%2063.pdf
The scheme was known to HMRC right from the very start. It did not need to be detected by any radar.
This is why the whole thing stinks and why our anger should be 100% directed at HMRC.
Am i being thick here, but why has this not been bought up in court, or was it ? If it was and it was dismissed then god help us....by the way, anyone have idea what's happening with the case that went straight to Europe ?Comment
-
Originally posted by GBHuhd View Post........ why has this not been bought up in court, or was it ? If it was and it was dismissed then god help us.
By the next day however Parker had turned 180 and swallowed all the 'Fairness' arguments that Hector's brief was spouting.Comment
-
PAYE?
Originally posted by screwthis View PostPoint taken.
Either way it amounts to the same thing i.e. employer's and employee's NI.
Has the possibility of attempting to submit as self employed been explored or is there a specific reason this won't work? I guess it's too late to claim we would have otherwise used a ltd company as we have gone down the trust route and there is no company for those years..Comment
Topic is closed
- 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