“ I owe £180,000 in tax and I haven’t told my wife”

[eek]

Hmm. I do find a match with AtW however....
Nah. Just make the scheme peddlers (and QC who gave the opinion) liable for unpaid tax if the schemes don't work.

Sadly that doesn't actually generate enough money to pay the tax bill (HMRC have been there and already tried that).

Why do you think S61O so panics everyone - it's designed to tell agencies (and end clients) that supply chain compliance is their issue and that the tax bill will be theirs if they don't do it.

[cojak]

Why do you think S61O so panics everyone - it's designed to tell agencies (and end clients) that supply chain compliance is their issue and that the tax bill will be theirs if they don't do it.

That's the only reasonable thing to come out of the whole sorry IR35 mess.

[eek]

That's the only reasonable thing to come out of the whole sorry IR35 mess.

Well IPSE now support a contractor levy on outside IR35 contracts so there is zero incentive to worry about IR35 - you may as well treat it as inside...

[Old Greg]

But that’s completely unfair!

Unfair but legal. I seem to remember loan users saying that the unfairness of not paying taxes was irrelevant as long as it was legal.

[HoofHearted]

Unfair but legal. I seem to remember loan users saying that the unfairness of not paying taxes was irrelevant as long as it was legal.

Lord Clyde (Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue [1929]):-

"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

[Old Greg]

Lord Clyde (Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue [1929]):-

"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

Exactly. So no complaints when Parliament and HMRC and being "unfair" or "immoral", when HMRC is putting the largest possible shovel into the stores of dodgy loan contractors. As long as it's legal, that's fine.

[NotAllThere]

Unfair but legal. I seem to remember loan users saying that the unfairness of not paying taxes was irrelevant as long as it was legal.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[eek]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I think it's more live by the sword, die by the sword. (Matthew 26:52)

[Old Greg]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

They don't need to. The dodgy loan contractors have already said that wrong is irrelevant as long as it's legal.

[AtW]

Just make the scheme peddlers (and QC who gave the opinion) liable for unpaid tax if the schemes don't work.

Tax must be prepaid (pending all legal stages, 6 years minimum) or it’s treated as clear tax evasion and it’s jail time for the whole chain - including QCs who approved it.