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

[BlasterBates]

The key difference between a tax avoidance scheme and a Ltd company is that the Government intends you to use a Ltd company, and there are explicit rules about setting it up. It's within the law as it was intended.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

The key difference between a tax avoidance scheme and a Ltd company is that the Government intends you to use a Ltd company, and there are explicit rules about setting it up. It's within the law as it was intended.

Exactly. HMRC often state that tax laws should not be used in a way that was not intended by Government. They also said something along the lines of tax law shouldn't be used in a way that the Government wouldn't have approved of had they thought about it - can't find the case in question but I did consider ordering a crystal ball at the time just to be on the safe side

[speling bee]

Exactly. HMRC often state that tax laws should not be used in a way that was not intended by Government. They also said something along the lines of tax law shouldn't be used in a way that the Government wouldn't have approved of had they thought about it - can't find the case in question but I did consider ordering a crystal ball at the time just to be on the safe side

Parliament, I think, not Government.

[malvolio]

Exactly. HMRC often state that tax laws should not be used in a way that was not intended by Government. They also said something along the lines of tax law shouldn't be used in a way that the Government wouldn't have approved of had they thought about it - can't find the case in question but I did consider ordering a crystal ball at the time just to be on the safe side

Tat would be the original Monpelier/BN66 case. The contention all along has been that the wording of the legislation did not properly reflect what the "real" situation was supposed to be, and so BN66 wasn't a retrospective amendment, it was a clarification of the original intent. The effect is that the tax rule was changed retrospectively, but only if you accepted the interpretation of the original wording as used by the likes of Montpelier. Since we aren't tax lawyers, it's hard to see the difference in outcome though, which is what the NTRT people are fighting about.

Note that IMHO this does not apply to the later EBT-related stuff. HMRC put a clear marker in the ground in 2008 about what they intended to do and from when.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Tat would be the original Monpelier/BN66 case. The contention all along has been that the wording of the legislation did not properly reflect what the "real" situation was supposed to be, and so BN66 wasn't a retrospective amendment, it was a clarification of the original intent. The effect is that the tax rule was changed retrospectively, but only if you accepted the interpretation of the original wording as used by the likes of Montpelier. Since we aren't tax lawyers, it's hard to see the difference in outcome though, which is what the NTRT people are fighting about.

Note that IMHO this does not apply to the later EBT-related stuff. HMRC put a clear marker in the ground in 2008 about what they intended to do and from when.

Thanks Mal - knew I'd seen it somewhere

[smalldog]

Thanks Mal - knew I'd seen it somewhere

my humble opinion is that anyone who went ebt/other scheme post 2008 basically strapped on a rising sun headband and decided kamikaze was the ultimate answer. The entire game changed, and im afraid psc's are on the radar, just not yet but, their time will come.....and I think we all know it's only a matter of time, no matter how many people shout were in a legitimate business, the powers at be don't believe you I'm afraid.

Ir35 as it was implemented, failed to address the governments distaste at single person companies challenging etonian buddies consultancy contracts. However to me it's not over yet, not by a long way.