PM FAO AtW

[BrilloPad]

And where did your legal understanding get you?

It's obvious that HMRC will move down the chain in cases when employer can't cover the tax due, this tax will be even higher if that employee effectively gets gross amount as net, can't see employers willing to double up the amount of tax.

No-one saw retrospective legislation coming.

I already said on the other thread that retrospective legislation would be needed to "move down the chain".

Why don't you stick to Ekonomics......

[BrilloPad]

Mate, legal understanding at the time did not bank on HMRC taking the unprecedented step of retrospective legislation - if you can't see the problem with that, and the potential ramifications for any sort of tax planning, then you are kidding yourself as to the honesty and integrity of those in charge of our taxation and political systems.

The government has not braced new technology properly. We are seen as glorified typists. And we always get sacrificed in any trade deals.

We need more majestic success stories. I would like to see government LISTENING to the chairperson of IPSE. Or to the head of CUK.....

How many rep points do I lose for being a creep?

[AtW]

No-one saw retrospective legislation coming.

First of all it was obvious to anybody with half a brain that it could and would certainly happen because otherwise HMRC plays the never ending game of catchup. Retro action was necessary to create new risk for any schemer that they can't be sure that the scheme would work fine until loophole is closed and they everybody moves to another one. It was obvious game changer that was well overdue, thus entirely predictable.

Secondly, and this is in regards to "legal understanding", it was very clear what PAYE rules are - all tax bands were very well known, employer NICs, employee NICs, it was all fooking legally clear what should happen when you earn salary, even if it is paid differently. It was super clear, does not a fooking legal QC to tell you how much you should be paying in tax: 40% tax band, much better than 50% or 45%.

[northernladyuk]

First of all it was obvious to anybody with half a brain that it could and would certainly happen because otherwise HMRC plays the never ending game of catchup. Retro action was necessary to create new risk for any schemer that they can't be sure that the scheme would work fine until loophole is closed and they everybody moves to another one. It was obvious game changer that was well overdue, thus entirely predictable.

Secondly, and this is in regards to "legal understanding", it was very clear what PAYE rules are - all tax bands were very well known, employer NICs, employee NICs, it was all fooking legally clear what should happen when you earn salary, even if it is paid differently. It was super clear, does not a fooking legal QC to tell you how much you should be paying in tax: 40% tax band, much better than 50% or 45%.

You're not playing the game. The NTRT crowd are mere victims of the state who did no more than prudently manage their tax affairs in a manner that is on the same continuum as Ltd Co. + low salary + divis.

[AtW]

Here is a pretty fooking simple legal position in regards to income:

https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates

Anybody else who says it's not so is either a cretin or got vested interest.

[BrilloPad]

First of all it was obvious to anybody with half a brain that it could and would certainly happen because otherwise HMRC plays the never ending game of catchup. Retro action was necessary to create new risk for any schemer that they can't be sure that the scheme would work fine until loophole is closed and they everybody moves to another one. It was obvious game changer that was well overdue, thus entirely predictable.

And yet NO-ONE predicted it. And that was not the reason that they introduced retrospection. It was the reason they introduced APNs.

Secondly, and this is in regards to "legal understanding", it was very clear what PAYE rules are - all tax bands were very well known, employer NICs, employee NICs, it was all fooking legally clear what should happen when you earn salary, even if it is paid differently. It was super clear, does not a fooking legal QC to tell you how much you should be paying in tax: 40% tax band, much better than 50% or 45%.

I agree with all that. However it is up to the employer to pay that. That is what the Murray case has said.

Please leave off sniffing the squirrel poo.....

[BrilloPad]

Here is a pretty fooking simple legal position in regards to income:

https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates

Anybody else who says it's not so is either a cretin or got vested interest.

Anyone who says its simple is a cretin or abuses squirrels.

[BrilloPad]

This message is hidden because northernladyuk is on your ignore list.

[AtW]

And yet NO-ONE predicted it. And that was not the reason that they introduced retrospection. It was the reason they introduced APNs.

I not only predicted the above, I called for it, and I called for action to be taken against scheme makers, which is also now happening across EU.

It was the only logical outcome of what's was going on - as soon as people started pooling to create more legal challenges, slow everything down, then APNs were to follow, it happened thanks to your efforts, well done!

I agree with all that. However it is up to the employer to pay that. That is what the Murray case has said.

And I predict that in the end it will be the people who got the money who will have to pay up at Income Tax level plus Employee NICs (but not Employer NICs).

This does not contradict what Murrey case has said, which will be "clarified" in upcoming Finance Bill...

The most important part of the Murrey case is that those payments were deemed subject to PAYE, that's the key, not the obvious bit that yes, it was responsibility of Employer to deduct it, but they failed and in cases when employed gone bust the difference in tax (apart from Employer NICs) will be taken from those who received the money.

[BrilloPad]

I not only predicted the above, I called for it, and I called for action to be taken against scheme makers, which is also now happening across EU.

Shame you are a c**kwomble who everyone ignores.

And I predict that in the end it will be the people who got the money who will have to pay up at Income Tax level plus Employee NICs (but not Employer NICs).

I have not excluded that. I have just pointed out its not the current law. As a w4nkpuffin you cannot seem to grasp that simple concept.

Still, if it distracts you from posting in professional forums with the grownups, then great.....