Need rid of my accountant fast...Any good ones for under 50/pm

[prozak]

Avoidance used to be acceptable. The Govt have been using the words evasion and avoidance in the same breath for a few years now to the extent that avoidance is now seem in the same light as evasion. Thinking about it, they don't even seem to refer to evasion anymore - just avoidance.

Avoidance still is acceptable.

HMRC however are trying to muddy the waters to make it seem unacceptable.

I've also seen people talking about paying a "fair" amount of tax. WTF is that? Fair to me is as little as you can legally get away with so some governement department doesn't piss it up the wall.

[simondolan]

Avoidance still is acceptable.

HMRC however are trying to muddy the waters to make it seem unacceptable.

I've also seen people talking about paying a "fair" amount of tax. WTF is that? Fair to me is as little as you can legally get away with so some governement department doesn't piss it up the wall.

Your definition of fair is about right I reckon. And diametrically opposed to the Govt's definition, where fair is defined as "more than you paid last year"

[d000hg]

Avoidance still is acceptable.

Acceptable, but higher risk if they decide to change the rules retrospectively using the "come on, you knew you were taking the mickey" argument. This kind of thing would not anger Joe Public - highly contractors forced to pay back tax they wriggled out of - so HMRC could do it.

[malvolio]

Acceptable, but higher risk if they decide to change the rules retrospectively using the "come on, you knew you were taking the mickey" argument. This kind of thing would not anger Joe Public - highly contractors forced to pay back tax they wriggled out of - so HMRC could do it.

Not really. Tax law changes (in fact, any law changes) cannot be retrospective. Changes to regulations and/or thresholds can only be backdated to the point they were announced. The exception is BN66 and that only happened because HMRC are trying to say that that's what the law always meant even though it wasn't what the law said.

So they can stop anything going forward - look at MSCs and onshore EBTs for example - and use anti-forestalling regualtions to stop it today, but in practice they can't touch yesterday.

[d000hg]

Not really. Tax law changes (in fact, any law changes) cannot be retrospective. Changes to regulations and/or thresholds can only be backdated to the point they were announced. The exception is BN66 and that only happened because HMRC are trying to say that that's what the law always meant even though it wasn't what the law said.

So they can stop anything going forward - look at MSCs and onshore EBTs for example - and use anti-forestalling regualtions to stop it today, but in practice they can't touch yesterday.

That's certainly how it should be. Can you say with 100% certainty that they won't do otherwise though?

[malvolio]

That's certainly how it should be. Can you say with 100% certainty that they won't do otherwise though?

Not personally, but I think someone may be moved to protest if a minister tries to enact retroactive legislation

[d000hg]

Not personally, but I think someone may be moved to protest if a minister tries to enact retroactive legislation

Depends how they spin it. I think the public would support us until the MP lets slip the contractor earns over £100k per year, and pays less % tax than a binman.

[malvolio]

Depends how they spin it. I think the public would support us until the MP lets slip the contractor earns over £100k per year, and pays less % tax than a binman.

And we let slip that they are fighting to retain an expense regime that returns a significnat profit forpersonal expenses we can't claim as businesses? Or that the average BigCo is paying less than 10% CT on total profits?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

And we let slip that they are fighting to retain an expense regime that returns a significnat profit forpersonal expenses we can't claim as businesses? Or that the average BigCo is paying less than 10% CT on total profits?

That's not news though Mal - don't you read the Daily Mail Trouble is, the average man on the street may moan about politicians and big corps but they don't really identify with them - if the Government put out a press release which said 'Treasury clamp down on fat cat contractors' and then went on to explain that thousands of contractors who earn 'at least 10 times the wage of the average worker' have 'exploited tax loopholes' with the help of 'unscrupulous tax advisors' there would be uproar. Joe public can identify with individuals and will see it as - how do you earn 10 times what I earn when I work for a living and you just sit on your bum in front of a computer "ITS' NOT FAIR" A couple of weeks later the Government put out another press release saying that this loophole exploitation has been going on for, say, 10 years so that have decided that, in the order of fairness, they will collect the additional taxes from the previous 5 years - Joe bloggs would not complain.

[d000hg]

And we let slip that they are fighting to retain an expense regime that returns a significnat profit forpersonal expenses we can't claim as businesses? Or that the average BigCo is paying less than 10% CT on total profits?

All true but I don't think you're going to get much sympathy regardless because Brits are just waiting to pull down anyone doing better than they are. Sad, but I'm fairly sure it's true