Calling all IPSE Members

[mudskipper]

IPSE's statements pretty much reflect my own views on this. Don't use schemes. If you do use schemes, then you should expect HMRC to come after you. But coming after people 20 years down the line when those people have been upfront about their scheme use, and have had no indication from HMRC that what they're doing is "wrong" is an appalling way to behave and is wrecking people's lives.

Clearly some will feel IPSE should have done more and some will feel they have said too much. My own view is that they've got it just about right on this.

[Old Greg]

IPSE's statements pretty much reflect my own views on this. Don't use schemes. If you do use schemes, then you should expect HMRC to come after you. But coming after people 20 years down the line when those people have been upfront about their scheme use, and have had no indication from HMRC that what they're doing is "wrong" is an appalling way to behave and is wrecking people's lives.

Clearly some will feel IPSE should have done more and some will feel they have said too much. My own view is that they've got it just about right on this.

The problem with getting involved at all is that standing up for the dodgy scheme users dilutes IPSE's moral authority when it comes to standing up for the one man band Ltd Co. contracting model.

We may all take a view on whether or not it is wrong to come after the scheme users, but IMO, it is not the business of an organisation trying to stand up for contracting.

[malvolio]

The problem with getting involved at all is that standing up for the dodgy scheme users dilutes IPSE's moral authority when it comes to standing up for the one man band Ltd Co. contracting model.

We may all take a view on whether or not it is wrong to come after the scheme users, but IMO, it is not the business of an organisation trying to stand up for contracting.

Sigh...

They are not for or against the scheme users in the slightest. Caveat Emptor applies...

They are against HMRC's actions against the scheme users and, in other cases, against other victims - sorry, customers - of their mendacious application of the law. And that has a far wider application for all of us.

Nuff said. Sad to hear June Whitfield had died.

[Old Greg]

Sigh...

They are not for or against the scheme users in the slightest. Caveat Emptor applies...

They are against HMRC's actions against the scheme users and, in other cases, against other victims - sorry, customers - of their mendacious application of the law. And that has a far wider application for all of us.

Nuff said. Sad to hear June Whitfield had died.

So they are against HMRC's actions against the scheme users but that is not supportive of the scheme users. Thanks for clarifying.

[malvolio]

So they are against HMRC's actions against the scheme users but that is not supportive of the scheme users. Thanks for clarifying.

[Old Greg]

I accept your admission of defeat and apology.

[malvolio]

I accept your admission of defeat and apology.

More like resignation and exasperation. Clearly you are one of those sad souls who think continually and pointlessly trying to argue a point that hasn't been made makes you somehow intellectually superior.

There's a new year coming up. Perhaps resolve to try harder to make sense. And perhaps even listen to what's being said.

[Old Greg]

More like resignation and exasperation. Clearly you are one of those sad souls who think continually and pointlessly trying to argue a point that hasn't been made makes you somehow intellectually superior.

There's a new year coming up. Perhaps resolve to try harder to make sense. And perhaps even listen to what's being said.

You did rather make a hash of things.

[Old Greg]

If you are interested, please see the links below

IPSE urges government reconsideration on retrospective tax | IPSE
MPs increase pressure on Government's Loan Charge | IPSE
IPSE agrees with House of Lords report criticising HMRC’s 2019 Loan Charge | IPSE

"IPSE has long advised its members against using Employment Benefit Trust (EBT) schemes. However, the Government’s retrospective approach to this issue is clearly causing serious distress for many taxpayers and their families."

The first link is interesting. It states:

For the last twenty years those who work outside of traditional employment have been pushed from one tax model to another while successive governments have frantically legislated to close loopholes, increasing the compliance burden in the process. Now the government is reaching back in time and demanding payments on arrangements that many believed, albeit incorrectly, were compliant, putting tremendous strain on hard-working families.

What is the 'incorrectly' about? Is IPSE saying that the arrangements were never compliant? I understand the NTRT position to be that the schemes were compliant, but that legislation has been retrospectively changed this. I appreciate that this is now wandering off topic, but this is General, and I'm interested in insights into IPSE's position.

[mudskipper]

The first link is interesting. It states:



What is the 'incorrectly' about? Is IPSE saying that the arrangements were never compliant? I understand the NTRT position to be that the schemes were compliant, but that legislation has been retrospectively changed this. I appreciate that this is now wandering off topic, but this is General, and I'm interested in insights into IPSE's position.

You're unlikely to get an IPSE official response on here, just various interpretations. As I posted the links, I'll give you my personal interpretation, which is that I think IPSE has always claimed these schemes "don't work" but believe the Loan Charge amounts to retrospective taxation - if the schemes "don't work" they should have been dealt with in a timely manner. Six years is the limit for most tax investigations - 20 years is reserved for the most serious evasion and this is not it.

IPSE and NTRT probably have some overlap and a lot of differences. I'm no longer close enough to the former to confirm, and have never been close enough to the latter to understand the detail.