More

[vetran]

What if you turn up and mumble in court that it seems very borderline to you, show your courier delivery contract that says you must drive at at least the speed limit, your client / employer turns up with the package collection and drop off time records that show your average speed was in excess of the speed limit, and your Back to Work Adviser gives a statement that you also broke the journey to sign on as well? Hypothetically of course.

well if you turn up with an organisation like QDOS it seems they shout out loud you are innocent such that you seem to have a 0.002% chance of being convicted.

The Client will say what they want and what is easy for them the decision makes no difference to them - maybe it should?

 

[SueEllen]

well if you turn up with an organisation like QDOS it seems they shout out loud you are innocent such that you seem to have a 0.002% chance of being convicted.

The Client will say what they want and what is easy for them the decision makes no difference to them - maybe it should?

People get off or reduced speeding convicts for turning up with decent lawyers, so it's not surprising the same happens in other areas of law.

 

[teapot418]

The Client will say what they want and what is easy for them the decision makes no difference to them - maybe it should?

Only if they get some say in the determination in the first place. Which is partly why we are where we are.

 

[northernladyuk]

well if you turn up with an organisation like QDOS it seems they shout out loud you are innocent such that you seem to have a 0.002% chance of being convicted.

The Client will say what they want and what is easy for them the decision makes no difference to them - maybe it should?

There is always a risk that the client misunderstands the situation or doesn't care, when a client employee who doesn't know the contractor or project gives a statement.

In PC's case, the risk is that the client tells it exactly like it is.

 

[northernladuk]

well if you turn up with an organisation like QDOS it seems they shout out loud you are innocent such that you seem to have a 0.002% chance of being convicted.

The Client will say what they want and what is easy for them the decision makes no difference to them - maybe it should?

Indeed but what we don't know is what they were defending. If borderline cases make up just a few of all the cases then there could be a much higher failure rate for those types of cases.

And you might not get convicted but you've got 3 years of fighting to go through. Better to be not borderline and shut the whole thing down at the first letter.

 

[LondonManc]

Anyone who takes the bulk of their company income as dividends is 'abusing' the system. abusing

Not this nonsense again.

Anyone who takes the bulk of their company income as dividends is following the advice given to them by a tax professional, i.e. their accountant, who they are paying to prepare their accounts and maximise the amount that they can extract from revenue.

Yep just me. If the ewe had lambs I'd get the blame!

FTFY. Ahem...

 

[d000hg]

Say again!?!

Dividend tax + corporation tax = HMRC is doing alright.

So take all your income as salary then if it's not avoiding you any tax

Not this nonsense again.

Anyone who takes the bulk of their company income as dividends is following the advice given to them by a tax professional, i.e. their accountant, who they are paying to prepare their accounts and maximise the amount that they can extract from revenue.



FTFY. Ahem...

Well duh, I do this like the rest of you. A bit like how claiming benefits is legal.

 

[LondonManc]

So take all your income as salary then if it's not avoiding you any tax

Well duh, I do this like the rest of you. A bit like how claiming benefits is legal.

Deary me.
I could eat a can of alphabet soup and crap out a better argument than that.

 

[eek]

So take all your income as salary then if it's not avoiding you any tax

Well duh, I do this like the rest of you. A bit like how claiming benefits is legal.

 

[Dactylion]

But this is the problem PC. You yourself say borderline. Even with people that think they are slam dunk inside there is a big argument and a length investigation. You saying your are borderline means HMRC will see you bang inside. As. Soon as D&C is proven at any level then you are done. Not borderline, might be, a little bit. It's proven and HMRC have a massive upper hand.

We see just the facts you post without trying to sugar coat it. I think it's a pretty good assumption that your are pretty much inside if you think you are borderline.

Not understand MoO properly and doing a mix of BAU adds to this assumption.

As a defence - do you not have to "prove" (any) one of the "three pillars" rather than Hector having to "dis-prove" just one of them?