Originally posted by PhilBreeze
					
						
						
							
							
							
							
								
								
								
								
									View Post
								
							
						
					
				
				
			
		- 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
					Collapse
				
				
				
					
					
						
							
						
						
					
					
						
							
						
					
				
				
				
				
					
				
			- 
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
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 - 
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
It applies to any discretionary trust, it's not a matter of opinion. That's the point, really.Originally posted by speling bee View PostIn whose opinion does this apply to your solution?Comment
 - 
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
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?Originally posted by PhilBreeze View PostIt applies to any discretionary trust, it's not a matter of opinion. That's the point, really.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_ParkComment
 - 
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
This could go on and on..Originally posted by speling bee View PostWhere 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?
 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
 - 
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
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:Originally posted by PhilBreeze View PostThis 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 
- 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_ParkComment
 - 
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
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.Originally posted by PhilBreeze View PostDr 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."Comment
 - 
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 - 
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
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_ParkComment
 - 
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
bank accounts
If it isn't retained in a bank account that *you* control, don't go near them.Originally posted by Just1morethen View PostWhat happens to the 16% the contractor does NOT retain?Comment
 - 
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
Endorsed by ...
They say it's fully endorsed by Robert Venables QC. You can contact him here:Originally posted by Waldorf View PostA 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?
Contact Us - Advice on Personal Tax, Corporate Tax, dealing with HMRC and Tax PlanningComment
 
- Home
 - News & Features
 - First Timers
 - IR35 / S660 / BN66
 - Employee Benefit Trusts
 - Agency Workers Regulations
 - MSC Legislation
 - Limited Companies
 - Dividends
 - Umbrella Company
 - VAT / Flat Rate VAT
 - Job News & Guides
 - Money News & Guides
 - Guide to Contracts
 - Successful Contracting
 - Contracting Overseas
 - Contractor Calculators
 - MVL
 - Contractor Expenses
 
Advertisers


				
				
				
				
Comment