I always knew we were right....

[DigitalUser]

Justice is when people in same situation pay same amount of tax - it's totally unjust that somebody can get into artificial scheme that has no economic sense to dodge taxes everybody else would have pay.

So what is your setup - full PAYE or salary/dividends? One could argue that the latter is a similarly artificial setup for most of the posters on this site.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4

[eek]

So what is your setup - full PAYE or salary/dividends? One could argue that the latter is a similarly artificial setup for most of the posters on this site.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4

Atw pays himself a fair whack paye which is inappropriate for his initial business setup but each to their own and does make him beyond reproach here

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Most people agree that using artificial schemes is clearly wrong.

However, what about using a Ltd Company where the only purpose is to minimize tax? That is tax avoidance, right?

Most contractors could use a simple PAYE umbrella, so how many genuinely choose Ltd for business/commercial purposes as opposed to reducing tax? Not many that I know.

[eek]

Most people agree that using artificial schemes is clearly wrong.

However, what about using a Ltd Company where the only purpose is to minimize tax? That is tax avoidance, right?

Most contractors could use a simple PAYE umbrella, so how many genuinely choose Ltd for business/commercial purposes as opposed to reducing tax? Not many that I know.

I don't trust anyone so would never use a PAYE umbrella. I want my money under my own control asap.

Also service companies were forced upon contractors back in 1978. I would happily call myself self employed however I cannot do that legally so go for the next least worst option. I will accept there are tax benefits for doing so (as was shown in one of the mid 2000's budgets when many self employed people moved to limited companies) but I've used limited companies while contracting since 1994.

[fullyautomatix]

Most people agree that using artificial schemes is clearly wrong.

However, what about using a Ltd Company where the only purpose is to minimize tax? That is tax avoidance, right?

Most contractors could use a simple PAYE umbrella, so how many genuinely choose Ltd for business/commercial purposes as opposed to reducing tax? Not many that I know.

Aaah, the old chestnut. You are all doing it so what was wrong in us doing it.

I am surprised that another of your favourite, the speed limit thingummy, hasnt popped up yet to justify your theft.

As Mal pointed out clearly in the earlier posts, governments provide tax breaks to encourage certain enterprises or individuals and the so called scheme providers try to exploit this by claiming that its legal. Where it falls flat is in proving to a judge that you were legal as well as compliant. If a musician is offered 100% tax break to encourage music production, and your dodgy scheme provider sets up fake music company and labels you as a musician to enable you to pay 0% tax, its legal but you are not compliant because you havent got a clue what music is. So have fun proving in court that you did the right thing. I am glad that the judges have used common sense here and realised that this was nothing but blatant tax loophole exploitation.

[BrilloPad]

Aaah, the old chestnut. You are all doing it so what was wrong in us doing it.

I am surprised that another of your favourite, the speed limit thingummy, hasnt popped up yet to justify your theft.

As Mal pointed out clearly in the earlier posts, governments provide tax breaks to encourage certain enterprises or individuals and the so called scheme providers try to exploit this by claiming that its legal. Where it falls flat is in proving to a judge that you were legal as well as compliant. If a musician is offered 100% tax break to encourage music production, and your dodgy scheme provider sets up fake music company and labels you as a musician to enable you to pay 0% tax, its legal but you are not compliant because you havent got a clue what music is. So have fun proving in court that you did the right thing. I am glad that the judges have used common sense here and realised that this was nothing but blatant tax loophole exploitation.

Gosh - a politicians answer - ignoring the question - why not answer it?

Most contractors could happily work under an umbrella and have no need for a limited company.

To provide an answer to your point, We are quite happy to take our case to court. And are in favour of any loopholes being closed retrospectively.

[BrilloPad]

I want my money under my own control asap.

So you buy gold and keep it under your mattress?

[eek]

So you buy gold and keep it under your mattress?

Occasionally in the past I have but I've since sold it

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I don't trust anyone so would never use a PAYE umbrella. I want my money under my own control asap.

Also service companies were forced upon contractors back in 1978. I would happily call myself self employed however I cannot do that legally so go for the next least worst option.

Sound commercial reasons for going Ltd.

But here's where it gets a bit tricky.

What is the commercial purpose for taking dividends? You could draw 100% salary and pay full employers NIC and tax.

I'm not saying that artificial/contrived schemes and Ltd are equally comparable. They are not. But it is not black and white either.

[eek]

Sound commercial reasons for going Ltd.

But here's where it gets a bit tricky.

What is the commercial purpose for taking dividends? You could draw 100% salary and pay full employers NIC and tax.

I'm not saying that artificial/contrived schemes and Ltd are equally comparable. They are not. But it is not black and white either.

To reduce risk again by minimising company costs and ensure money remains for rainy days when the market isn't so good

or to profit from the risk involved due to method of working which adds additional potential risk to income which would not be the case if I was an employee.