No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Does this mean that there are grounds for Montpelier users to challenge and not have to pay anything prior to 2004/2005 ?

It sounds like we are one of many schemes that came under DOTAS and were at risk and therefore there could be a rule for consistency ?

It's probably best to wait for the budget in a couple of weeks to see what's actually included in the finance bill.

[jamesbrown]

Not sure if this is the best place, but FYI:

Wealthy investors protest against new UK tax rules - FT.com

If you can't access this directly, you can search for "Wealthy investors protest against new UK tax rules" and should be able to access the FT article indirectly (possibly after answering a couple of survey questions as a non-subscriber).

[AlbionRovers]

Not sure if this is the best place, but FYI:

Wealthy investors protest against new UK tax rules - FT.com

If you can't access this directly, you can search for "Wealthy investors protest against new UK tax rules" and should be able to access the FT article indirectly (possibly after answering a couple of survey questions as a non-subscriber).

For any new readers - and there it is yet again. "HMRC has won more than 80 per cent of avoidance cases that it litigates...." - no mention of the cases that HMRC didn't litigate then because they knew they had no chance of success.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

For any new readers - and there it is yet again. "HMRC has won more than 80 per cent of avoidance cases that it litigates...." - no mention of the cases that HMRC didn't litigate then because they knew they had no chance of success.

They have a Litigation and Settlement Strategy (LSS) which says...

...only litigate where there is a good chance of success.

It's therefore hardly surprising they have an 80% win rate.

[Fireship]

They have a Litigation and Settlement Strategy (LSS) which says...

...only litigate where there is a good chance of success.

It's therefore hardly surprising they have an 80% win rate.

The fact they didn't litigate against us prior to the invention of the time machine speaks volumes!

[travellingknob]

It is my belief that the ultimate goal of HMRC is to get everyone under PAYE. PAYE = state control.

Anyone who thinks they are safe running a Ltd company as a "genuine" business is sadly deluded IMHO, and your post has partially proven it.

Slightly off topic and sorry if an IR35 thread would be better placed but nonetheless related to above comment: I heard today that HMRC are saying all contractor dividends from their own Ltd Co.'s should be classed as PAYE. Its based on the thought process that essentially the contractor went out and earned that money in the first place so any dividend is not actually investment income (as dividends were intended to be) but in actual fact are a form of remuneration for work they have done. As such PAYE and NICs apply.
I believe this is being argued completely irrespective of whether IR35 applies or not and may be a development from an earlier ruling 'PA Holdings v HMRC' That ruling was an avoidance case but clearly the argument is being developed by HMRC to apply elsewhere.

Has anyone else heard of this ? I cant find any discussion on this new development other than comments on the potential impact of the original judgement so not sure how genuine it is but if true it has massive implications right across the 'contractor' industry.

[smalldog]

Slightly off topic and sorry if an IR35 thread would be better placed but nonetheless related to above comment: I heard today that HMRC are saying all contractor dividends from their own Ltd Co.'s should be classed as PAYE. Its based on the thought process that essentially the contractor went out and earned that money in the first place so any dividend is not actually investment income (as dividends were intended to be) but in actual fact are a form of remuneration for work they have done. As such PAYE and NICs apply.
I believe this is being argued completely irrespective of whether IR35 applies or not and may be a development from an earlier ruling 'PA Holdings v HMRC' That ruling was an avoidance case but clearly the argument is being developed by HMRC to apply elsewhere.

Has anyone else heard of this ? I cant find any discussion on this new development other than comments on the potential impact of the original judgement so not sure how genuine it is but if true it has massive implications right across the 'contractor' industry.

if that is true lets see if it becomes retro!!!!

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Slightly off topic and sorry if an IR35 thread would be better placed but nonetheless related to above comment: I heard today that HMRC are saying all contractor dividends from their own Ltd Co.'s should be classed as PAYE. Its based on the thought process that essentially the contractor went out and earned that money in the first place so any dividend is not actually investment income (as dividends were intended to be) but in actual fact are a form of remuneration for work they have done. As such PAYE and NICs apply.
I believe this is being argued completely irrespective of whether IR35 applies or not and may be a development from an earlier ruling 'PA Holdings v HMRC' That ruling was an avoidance case but clearly the argument is being developed by HMRC to apply elsewhere.

Has anyone else heard of this ? I cant find any discussion on this new development other than comments on the potential impact of the original judgement so not sure how genuine it is but if true it has massive implications right across the 'contractor' industry.

Where did you hear that? PA Holdings is quite an old case I think

[eek]

Slightly off topic and sorry if an IR35 thread would be better placed but nonetheless related to above comment: I heard today that HMRC are saying all contractor dividends from their own Ltd Co.'s should be classed as PAYE. Its based on the thought process that essentially the contractor went out and earned that money in the first place so any dividend is not actually investment income (as dividends were intended to be) but in actual fact are a form of remuneration for work they have done. As such PAYE and NICs apply.
I believe this is being argued completely irrespective of whether IR35 applies or not and may be a development from an earlier ruling 'PA Holdings v HMRC' That ruling was an avoidance case but clearly the argument is being developed by HMRC to apply elsewhere.

Sorry to be a pain but without any documentary evidence that is just what HMRC want to occur....
Do you have a link as it seems to be likely to be a misunderstanding regarding the self employment changes.....

[travellingknob]

Sorry to be a pain but without any documentary evidence that is just what HMRC want to occur....
Do you have a link as it seems to be likely to be a misunderstanding regarding the self employment changes.....

Yes your right, its what HMRC want to occur and hearsay until I see hard facts which is why I'm questioning it but nonetheless it makes a certain sense given how they now treat EBT's and a whole host of other historical things as income I can easily believe they'll apply the same rationale to dividends which are not derived out of investments. Not saying I agree, just putting what I've heard out there for question.