• 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

    #51
    Originally posted by PhilBreeze View Post
    Good morning Lisa. A lot there to cover but cutting to one of the more important points:



    There are several providers out there offering self-employed solutions to contractors, claiming they are Finance Act 2011 compliant. "FA2011 only applies to employees" is their logic, however they seem to have overlooked the fact that self-employment is not a choice, as most contractors will be aware, your employment status is derived from an inherently complex set of criteria itself derived from years of employment and tax tribunal decisions.

    In other words, you can only set yourself up as self-employed if you are "outside IR35", and most contractors can't hand-on-heart claim to be 100% certain of their of their employment status..

    These self-employed trust solutions seem to get around Finance Act 2011 but consider what happens if HMRC investigate your self-employed status and determine you're actually a deemed employee of your client? Suddenly your only defense against FA2011 has disintegrated and HMRC can potentially apply the legislation to your newfound "deemed employment"..

    This is my interpretation of HMRC's intent above and indeed they wouldn't even need new legislation to act, just a bunch of contractors they are confident will fail an employment status review.

    I would only use one of the self-employed structures if I was 100% certain of self-employed status, and I'm surprised how frequently this key criterion is being overlooked by the promoters offering them. I've mystery shopped some of them and asked the direct question and been told it doesn't really matter....

    As for the rest, I've got two House of Lords decisions in favour of our product that I reckon trump your vague loosely targeted HMRC propaganda.. however if you know of any actual legislation or case law that our product does not comply with, I would be interested (staggered) to hear it back to you...
    And how would you address all the other points? Also I am unable to produce relevant case law without seeing your HOL decisions which I am sure you will be happy to provide
    Connect with me on LinkedIn

    Follow us on Twitter.

    ContractorUK Best Forum Advisor 2015

    Comment


      #52
      Originally posted by speling bee View Post
      Linky for House of Lords decisions please?
      My mistake Sempra only went as far as the Special Commissioners but that's not bad as far as impartial legal authorities go Anyway most of the facts were established in Dextra, Sempra merely confirmed them.

      Dextra Accessories
      House of Lords - MacDonald (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes (Respondent)) v Dextra Accessories Limited (Appellants)

      Sempra Metals
      http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.go...8/Spc00698.doc

      The Sempra decision is a cracking read for anyone who wants a better idea of how the courts view such arrangements

      Comment


        #53
        Originally posted by captainham
        Whilst I'm loving this thread and am intrigued to see how this pans out, in the words of a certain Mr Bannatyne: "Ah'm oot".
        Are you stark raving mad? It's truly a risk free proposition!
        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


          #54
          Originally posted by PhilBreeze View Post
          My mistake Sempra only went as far as the Special Commissioners but that's not bad as far as impartial legal authorities go Anyway most of the facts were established in Dextra, Sempra merely confirmed them.

          Dextra Accessories
          House of Lords - MacDonald (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes (Respondent)) v Dextra Accessories Limited (Appellants)

          Sempra Metals
          http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.go...8/Spc00698.doc

          The Sempra decision is a cracking read for anyone who wants a better idea of how the courts view such arrangements
          Happy to be corrected but weren't both these cases dealing with EBT's and didn't the House of Lords dismiss the taxpayers appeal in the Dextra case in 2005
          Connect with me on LinkedIn

          Follow us on Twitter.

          ContractorUK Best Forum Advisor 2015

          Comment


            #55
            Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella View Post
            Happy to be corrected but weren't both these cases dealing with EBT's and didn't the House of Lords dismiss the taxpayers appeal in the Dextra case in 2005
            Lisa, stop splitting hairs.
            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


              #56
              Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella View Post
              Happy to be corrected but weren't both these cases dealing with EBT's and didn't the House of Lords dismiss the taxpayers appeal in the Dextra case in 2005
              In both cases loans fron discretionary trusts were found not to be liable to income tax or NICs. The Dextra trust was an EBT and the Sempra trust was an EBT that converted to an FBT after the Dextra verdict. The House of Lords ruled against the taxpayer only on the deductibility of corporation tax on EBT contributions - non-EBT trust contribution remain deductible.
              Last edited by PhilBreeze; 16 August 2012, 09:40. Reason: spelling!

              Comment


                #57
                Originally posted by captainham
                I'm loving this thread
                Me too

                Comment


                  #58
                  Originally posted by PhilBreeze View Post
                  Me too
                  So are you running an EBT?
                  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


                    #59
                    Interesting

                    Presentations; Skills & Services, PowerPoint to Public Speaking; Exhibition Stands to Proposals - from ModernSelling.com - A FAULTLESS PRESENTATION EVERY TIME

                    Comment


                      #60
                      Originally posted by speling bee View Post
                      So are you running an EBT?
                      No. That would be non-compliant with the complete mess that is ITEPA Part 7A.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X