• 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!

breeze

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #71
    Originally posted by PhilBreeze View Post
    Dr Nuala Brice, OBE & Edward Sadler - Special Commissioners for HMRC:


    "We conclude that when the Appellant made payments to the trusts, no transfer of cash or its equivalent was placed unreservedly at the disposal of the employees. That means that there was no payment by the Appellant of emoluments or earnings giving rise to an obligation to deduct income tax and pay it to the Revenue."
    In whose opinion does this apply to your solution?
    The material prosperity of a nation is not an abiding possession; the deeds of its people are.

    George Frederic Watts

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postman's_Park

    Comment


      #72
      Originally posted by speling bee View Post
      In whose opinion does this apply to your solution?
      It applies to any discretionary trust, it's not a matter of opinion. That's the point, really.

      Comment


        #73
        Originally posted by PhilBreeze View Post
        It applies to any discretionary trust, it's not a matter of opinion. That's the point, really.
        Where does it say that it spplies to any discretionary trust, or if it doesn't say this, in whose opinion does it apply to any discretionary trust?
        The material prosperity of a nation is not an abiding possession; the deeds of its people are.

        George Frederic Watts

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postman's_Park

        Comment


          #74
          Originally posted by speling bee View Post
          Where does it say that it spplies to any discretionary trust, or if it doesn't say this, in whose opinion does it apply to any discretionary trust?
          This could go on and on.. I suggest you read the Sempra decision I linked to earlier, from paragraph 123 to 144 for starters. I have a feeling you're not going to take my word for an answer, which is absolutely fair enough as I obviously have a vested interest in making the point

          Comment


            #75
            Originally posted by PhilBreeze View Post
            This could go on and on.. I suggest you read the Sempra decision I linked to earlier, from paragraph 123 to 144 for starters. I have a feeling you're not going to take my word for an answer, which is absolutely fair enough as I obviously have a vested interest in making the point
            It is really simple. You have a model which you say is covered by case law. You ask me to read it an come to an opinion. I would like to know whose opinion backs up your view that these cases apply to your model. Is it:

            - defined by statute
            - the opinion of HMRC
            - the opinion of a judge
            - the opinion of a QC
            - your opinion

            With respect, I won't take your word for it but am interested to hear the word of an expert or official.
            The material prosperity of a nation is not an abiding possession; the deeds of its people are.

            George Frederic Watts

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postman's_Park

            Comment


              #76
              Originally posted by PhilBreeze View Post
              Dr Nuala Brice, OBE & Edward Sadler - Special Commissioners for HMRC:


              "We conclude that when the Appellant made payments to the trusts, no transfer of cash or its equivalent was placed unreservedly at the disposal of the employees. That means that there was no payment by the Appellant of emoluments or earnings giving rise to an obligation to deduct income tax and pay it to the Revenue."
              But in Dextra, HMR&C's argument that F1989 s.43 applied was accepted by the Court of Appeal and the decision was upheld by the House of Lords. As the trustees were viewed as intermediaries it was considered that contributions made should be viewed as emoluments. As I understand it the same argument was successfully used in the Sempra case even though a family benefit trust rather than an employee benefit trust was used. Also aren't these cases about 10 years old?? I am fairly sure that there have been tax tribunals since that would offer more compelling case law especially after the legal strike against EBTs.
              Connect with me on LinkedIn

              Follow us on Twitter.

              ContractorUK Best Forum Advisor 2015

              Comment


                #77
                What happens to the 16% the contractor does NOT retain?

                Comment


                  #78
                  Zero Risk

                  Just thinking about this Zero Wisk business.

                  Am I right to think that for there to be zero risk, then either:

                  - There is no chance of the solution failing, or
                  - If it does fail, the contractor will be no worse off than by joining the scheme.

                  So, is the insurance just to refund fees or is it to pay interest and penalties? Or is there zero chance of interest and penalty charges being made.
                  The material prosperity of a nation is not an abiding possession; the deeds of its people are.

                  George Frederic Watts

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postman's_Park

                  Comment


                    #79
                    bank accounts

                    Originally posted by Just1morethen View Post
                    What happens to the 16% the contractor does NOT retain?
                    If it isn't retained in a bank account that *you* control, don't go near them.

                    Comment


                      #80
                      Endorsed by ...

                      Originally posted by Waldorf View Post
                      A distinct lack of information on their website, no clue to where they are based etc, just a single page website, another one to avoid eh?
                      They say it's fully endorsed by Robert Venables QC. You can contact him here:

                      Contact Us &#45 Advice on Personal Tax, Corporate Tax, dealing with HMRC and Tax Planning

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X