breeze

[moggy]

Can they also confirm that, even if their insurance does cover the contractor, does this insurance cover the client/agency, if they are deemed to be the host employer?

[speling bee]

Can they also confirm that, even if their insurance does cover the contractor, does this insurance cover the client/agency, if they are deemed to be the host employer?

My next communication with ASA will include a complaint about 'fully indemnified'. It is not clear whether that will include interest and penalties, and whether it will put individuals back in a place they would have been with an alternative tax planning approach of Ltd, low salary, divis to upper taxt rate limit, with or without pension etc.

[prozak]

Because there's a fee for their service?

yes there is.

But like most offshore providers it is extortionate for the risk they are not taking.

Just like yours. No sane person would accept only 85% from a bunch of "dodgy offshore schemes" like yourself.

[eek]

yes there is.

But like most offshore providers it is extortionate for the risk they are not taking.

Just like yours. No sane person should accept only 85% from a bunch of "dodgy offshore schemes" like yourself.

FTFY because clearly people do otherwise "dodgy offshore scheme providers" wouldn't waste their time trying to find more customers.

[Vallah]

yes there is.

But like most offshore providers it is extortionate for the risk they are not taking.

Just like yours. No sane person would accept only 85% from a bunch of "dodgy offshore schemes" like yourself.

Lots of extremely sane and intelligent people do exactly that though.

[speling bee]

Lots of extremely sane and intelligent people do exactly that though.

Says Arthur Daley.

[prozak]

Lots of extremely sane and intelligent people do exactly that though.

Please define extremely sane v just plain old sane.

Please let me know how you know they are intelligent?

Once we establish these facts I think we can debate your point.

[prozak]

Nothing Vallah?

Are you will to post a complete breakdown of the allocation of revenue at least?

No offshore providor has yet come to the table with this information.

There is no IP in the breakdown.... Is there something else to hide?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Why are you only providing 85% return to the tax payer?

I think you will generally find

• 5% in tax/nic to the Exchequer
• 10% in fees to the promoter

In the recent NAO report, they estimated that mass marketed tax avoidance schemes are costing the Exchequer £5Bn/year. If you assume that £5Bn represents 40% tax, then there must be in the region of £10Bn/year gross going through the schemes. If the promoters typically charge 10% of gross, then that means they must be earning around £1Bn/year.

[prozak]

I think you will generally find

• 5% in tax/nic to the Exchequer
• 10% in fees to the promoter

In the recent NAO report, they estimated that mass marketed tax avoidance schemes are costing the Exchequer £5Bn/year. If you assume that £5Bn represents 40% tax, then there must be in the region of £10Bn/year gross going through the schemes. If the promoters typically charge 10% of gross, then that means they must be earning around £1Bn/year.

Yes. In general I know how they break it down.

I want a provider to cough up the information.

None seem willing to.

Which to me means they know they are sellers of snake oil and avoid questions that reveal the truth.