Official Contractor UK Budget Thread 2017

[LondonManc]

"3.71 Disguised remuneration
– The government will tackle disguised remuneration
avoidance schemes used by close companies – companies with fve or fewer participators – by
introducing the close companies’ gateway, revised following consultation, and measures to
ensure liabilities from the new loan charge are collected from the appropriate person. "

In layman's terms, I take it to mean that if you're doing things normally (salary + dividends) then you're fine but if you're a scheme users via loans, etc., you're fully fecked and the bolded bit means that there's a chance they'll go after the scheme arranger?

[BrilloPad]

In layman's terms, I take it to mean that if you're doing things normally (salary + dividends) then you're fine but if you're a scheme users via loans, etc., you're fully fecked and the bolded bit means that there's a chance they'll go after the scheme arranger?

I never joined a loan scheme after the retrospection of 2008. Anyone who has ever done any research over the last 5 years into loan schemes knows they are stuffed. One person in scheme enquiries asked for 80% tax on income.

Thing is, what is "normal"? I think HMRC think it is salary. No dividends. No income shifting.

[Platypus]

The £ is tanking...

And now?

[SueEllen]

Is that correct?
What if you owned a house in the past. sold it and was in rented?
What would stop someone selling their house and then renting for 6months. So to save paying stamp duty
What is the correct definition of a first time buyer.

Then as already said you are not a first time buyer.

You can't buy with someone who has ever owned a property before whether they now live in rented accommodation, or they inherited a property, never lived in it and sold it.

In my case it just makes my current property much easier to sell, which is why I said it is time to move house.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Yes but softened somewhat by the reduction in Corp Tax, the increase in personal allowance and the higher rate threshold so we are pretty much evens.

On income tax alone, I make it only an extra £300 income tax due on dividends up to the higher rate threshold, so anyone with more than £30k taxable profit is still going to benefit from last years 1% decrease overall (its set to go down again in 2020).

[LondonManc]

I never joined a loan scheme after the retrospection of 2008. Anyone who has ever done any research over the last 5 years into loan schemes knows they are stuffed. One person in scheme enquiries asked for 80% tax on income.

Thing is, what is "normal"? I think HMRC think it is salary. No dividends. No income shifting.

In terms of normal, all IR35 really did is turn commission and bonus structures into dividends, etc. Then they introduce the dividend tax allowances and them tighten them. It's a recognition that small high revenue companies exist and the inherent jealousy within the civil service of those high-earning specialists. The bigger issue is that it's the clients avoiding the business NICs, but they're harder targets, given many are backers of the government du jour, or at least have a team of tax experts to repel Hector and his horde.


I totally agree with HMRC, though, on their drive to clamp down on the loan schemes, etc. Not a problem with that. However, if they're drawing a hard line under this, they need to assist, rather than vilify, the gullible ones who were previously talked into these schemes and go after the originators. Provide a longer-term payment plan rather than a cash grab - the money will have, in most cases, been spent. Asset seizure should be a last-ditch approach when the person has no intention of making good. Get half from the individual and half from the scheme originator.

[BrilloPad]

In terms of normal, all IR35 really did is turn commission and bonus structures into dividends, etc. Then they introduce the dividend tax allowances and them tighten them. It's a recognition that small high revenue companies exist and the inherent jealousy within the civil service of those high-earning specialists. The bigger issue is that it's the clients avoiding the business NICs, but they're harder targets, given many are backers of the government du jour, or at least have a team of tax experts to repel Hector and his horde.


I totally agree with HMRC, though, on their drive to clamp down on the loan schemes, etc. Not a problem with that. However, if they're drawing a hard line under this, they need to assist, rather than vilify, the gullible ones who were previously talked into these schemes and go after the originators. Provide a longer-term payment plan rather than a cash grab - the money will have, in most cases, been spent. Asset seizure should be a last-ditch approach when the person has no intention of making good. Get half from the individual and half from the scheme originator.

"inherent jealousy within the civil service of those high-earning specialists" - yet they are not bothered when Crapita and Accenture charge people out at 2k a day.

Looking at Loan Schemes, I have complained to HMRC about adverts for such. Faqqer complained to ASA. No-one seems interested in going after the promoters.

[SueEllen]

In terms of normal, all IR35 really did is turn commission and bonus structures into dividends, etc. Then they introduce the dividend tax allowances and them tighten them. It's a recognition that small high revenue companies exist and the inherent jealousy within the civil service of those high-earning specialists. The bigger issue is that it's the clients avoiding the business NICs, but they're harder targets, given many are backers of the government du jour, or at least have a team of tax experts to repel Hector and his horde.

Including the colleagues they use to work with who have now have come back as contractors?

More likely they know how these things work because the public sector is worse than private companies in using them and zero hours contracts, to ensure they keep people off the books and keep their pension liabilities down.

[SueEllen]

Looking at Loan Schemes, I have complained to HMRC about adverts for such. Faqqer complained to ASA. No-one seems interested in going after the promoters.

Maybe worth waiting a month or two - finding the adverts and getting a few people to complain to their MPs - in your cases you can point out there is no effective structure to deal with schemes that ultimately defraud the taxpayer.

The budget reminded me to complain about a large foreign company deliberately avoiding online VAT.

[LondonManc]

"inherent jealousy within the civil service of those high-earning specialists" - yet they are not bothered when Crapita and Accenture charge people out at 2k a day.

Looking at Loan Schemes, I have complained to HMRC about adverts for such. Faqqer complained to ASA. No-one seems interested in going after the promoters.

They don't know what the individual is getting when C&A fleece them for 2k/day though. They see a contractor's invoice though, with VAT on it to make it look even worse.

Including the colleagues they use to work with who have now have come back as contractors?

More likely they know how these things work because the public sector is worse than private companies in using them and zero hours contracts, to ensure they keep people off the books and keep their pension liabilities down.

The public sector isn't a patch on the financial sector for using contractors.