Guilty until proved innocent

[d000hg]

I wonder if the primary objective here is to get more money, OR to put the frighteners on anyone who is considering using tax avoidance going forward... at a stroke making a drastic step on "reducing tax avoidance"?

[OwlHoot]

I wonder if the primary objective here is to get more money, OR to put the frighteners on anyone who is considering using tax avoidance going forward... at a stroke making a drastic step on "reducing tax avoidance"?

They can't fool you, Sherlock!

[centurian]

APN's are not the same.

Of course they are not the same, nor was I suggesting that they were.

But this will be the crux of their defence - the basic underlying principle that a person paying PAYE has to pay the tax due up front - it is seized from them by their employer - and if they disagree with the calculations, to firstly ask HMRC nicely for the money back - and if all else fails, to take HMRC to court.

The details are very different, but HMRC will focus only the underlying principle of paying the tax in advance is the same - and argue it is therefore "fair"

Will this argument wash with the courts, no idea. But a good HMRC brief will definitely try and drive that point home.

[MicrosoftBob]

Perhaps that should be raised in parliament, after all if APNs are good enough for us, they should be good enough for MPs expenses

[suityou01]

This thread needs SASGuru

[LondonManc]

Needs someone to take this to the European courts. You're putting lives at risk without evidence.

[DaveB]

Of course they are not the same, nor was I suggesting that they were.

But this will be the crux of their defence - the basic underlying principle that a person paying PAYE has to pay the tax due up front - it is seized from them by their employer - and if they disagree with the calculations, to firstly ask HMRC nicely for the money back - and if all else fails, to take HMRC to court.

The details are very different, but HMRC will focus only the underlying principle of paying the tax in advance is the same - and argue it is therefore "fair"

Will this argument wash with the courts, no idea. But a good HMRC brief will definitely try and drive that point home.

No, it's not the same principle.

Under PAYE you only pay on account if you have to complete a self assessed tax return. If you are a normal employee it is deducted from your pay, at the point at which you are paid, for the period which that pay relates to. There is no advance payment happening. The only way it can go wrong is if your employer screws up or HMRC has you on the wrong tax code.

If you do complete an SA they you pay half the forecast tax due on account, based on your current years income, not some arbitrary amount that HMRC may decide you owe for tax years already completed. It is offset against tax falling due in the next year, at which point you pay the balance. If you feel your liabilities will be substantially different you can make a submission to HMRC to revise your payment due on account.

You cannot appeal an APN unless you can demonstrate HMRC have got it wrong, and even then you still have to pay up in 90 days or face penalties.

[cojak]

So in a naive DOTAS like way - who DID tick 'YES' to the P35 Question 6 'Are you a PSC'?

[MicrosoftBob]

So in a naive DOTAS like way - who DID tick 'YES' to the P35 Question 6 'Are you a PSC'?

I imagine prostitutes using a ltd could be in hot water over that question

[AtW]

Property? That said, for someone who is earning £80k ish it shouldn't be a big ask. He said 27k is 1/3 of his salary which he says like "poor me" but means the opposite.

Property schmoperty, good warchest in the bank should always be available, that guy was a contractor ffs!