If it seems to good to be true............80%-90% take home

[TheFaQQer]

Unfortunately we are seeing dodgy scheme users spreading this story. it seems to be part of a narrative that they are in the firing line of the new fascist state and we'll be next.

As Mal says, the Ltd company is a perfectly legitimate vehicle defined by primary legislation etc. etc.

It's almost as if they want to encourage a professional representative group to take more of an interest by implying that we're all impacted, rather than just the aggressive tax avoiders.

[Old Greg]

It's almost as if they want to encourage a professional representative group to take more of an interest by implying that we're all impacted, rather than just the aggressive tax avoiders.

First they came for the BN66-ers and I did not speak out because I was not a BN66-er...

[TheFaQQer]

First they came for the BN66-ers and I did not speak out because I was not a BN66-er...

Didn't MF get banned for saying something similar?

[Old Greg]

Didn't MF get banned for saying something similar?

Well, he's a very naughty boy.

[jamesbrown]

Unfortunately we are seeing dodgy scheme users spreading this story. it seems to be part of a narrative that they are in the firing line of the new fascist state and we'll be next.

As Mal says, the Ltd company is a perfectly legitimate vehicle defined by primary legislation etc. etc.

Indeed. I don't agree with retrospection and I wouldn't crap on their discussion thread, but there's a clear effort to try and muddy the waters in order to broaden support against the crackdown on scheme users. Ultimately, there's a big difference between conducting tax planning within the broader context of running a Ltd and using a convoluted scheme whose sole purpose is to avoid tax. I don't particularly care for the language of "aggressive avoidance", which is essentially HMRC adopting the same strategy of muddying the water, but the contrast between tax planning within a Ltd company (for which there are many good reasons) and the use of a scheme specifically designed to avoid tax is a stark contrast indeed and, in this context, the latter could reasonably be labelled "aggressive". Not that any opinions are going to be changed on this - I'm sure many scheme users honestly believe that the primary motivation for a Ltd is to avoid tax - it probably was for them, which is why they got into this mess with schemes - but it isn't the primary motivation for a large fraction of us. To reiterate though, I don't agree with retrospection or the blunt approach being taken (with severe human costs), but I do fully agree with the forward-looking aspects of the legislation in terms of prevention.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

HMRC's view seems to be that, if something is contrived and its main purpose is to avoid tax then it will be considered tax avoidance - a PSC can in no way be described as contrived and its main purpose is to be a trading vehicle for an independent contractor

[kal]

Unfortunately we are seeing dodgy scheme users spreading this story. it seems to be part of a narrative that they are in the firing line of the new fascist state and we'll be next.

As Mal says, the Ltd company is a perfectly legitimate vehicle defined by primary legislation etc. etc.

Exactly, the dodgy scheme users are trying to tar LtdCo contractors with the same brush when nothing could be further from the truth, 90% retention + maybe 1% to HMRC with the remainder being trousered by some geezer in the Isle of Man is not the same as drawing salary and dividends both of which are taxed fully as per current legislation.

[jbryce]

dum dum dum diddle diddle diddle diddle dum dum dum

HMRC's view seems to be that, if something is contrived and its main purpose is to avoid tax then it will be considered tax avoidance - a PSC can in no way be described as contrived and its main purpose is to be a trading vehicle for an independent contractor

Exactly, linking current 'aggressive avoidance' legislation with the limited company approach is just plain bonkers.

For those of us who were caught up in the former, and now use the latter, do allow us a small amount of paranoia that HMG just hates the very though of Contractors. Actually - maybe it's just me they hate and the rest of you are just collateral damage

[eek]

Exactly, linking current 'aggressive avoidance' legislation with the limited company approach is just plain bonkers.

For those of us who were caught up in the former, and now use the latter, do allow us a small amount of paranoia that HMG just hates everyone. Actually - maybe it's just me they hate and the rest of you are just collateral damage

FTFY hth

[ASB]

There was a bit of chatter about qc opinion. Phil at breeze did publish theirs. But it is very important to realise how narrow these are. In effect "wont get caught under x of act x".

This is a long way off a confidence that it works. There are all sorts of other things it could be caught under. And no opinion of these has been sought.

Breeze marketing mentions gaining a substantial tax advantage. This alone may prejudice the allegedly commercial nature.

I am not saying breeze will stand or fall. Simply that is is naive in the extreme to expect it not to come under different attack from evolving legislation. The same is true of any scheme.