This thread isn't about the weather and cricket then?
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Artic in the Lords today
Collapse
X
-
I am not qualified to give the above advice!
The original point and click interface by
Smith and Wesson.
Step back, have a think and adjust my own own attitude from time to time -
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Lone GunmanThis thread isn't about the weather and cricket then?
ArcticComment
-
Originally posted by wendigo100I thought it was about a large lorry.
ArcticRule #76: No excuses. Play like a champion.Comment
-
The Test Case thing is about funding, pure and simple. If HMRC/Gay Gordon had decided to fight it as a test case as a matter of national interest, the costs would be borne by the public purse. By pursuing it as a final appeal, HMRC and Gorgon are merely being vindictive.
As you say, regardless of that the result will set clear precedent one way or the other. And should we lose (that's we as in UK, not just Arctic and the PCG) we're looking at an immediate tax bill of around £1.2bn for the rest of the country's husband/wife LtdCos, a major rethink of the way people set up their companies, a clear signal that the Government doesn't believe a spouse to have an equal interest in how the family earns their money, an ongoing additional tax burden for everyone involved and a big F*** You to the British tax-paying middle classes, not to mention the tearing noise as the will of Parliament is discarded in favour of short-term gain. So typical NL politics then...Blog? What blog...?Comment
-
Originally posted by malvolioThe Test Case thing is about funding, pure and simple. If HMRC/Gay Gordon had decided to fight it as a test case as a matter of national interest, the costs would be borne by the public purse. By pursuing it as a final appeal, HMRC and Gorgon are merely being vindictive.
As you say, regardless of that the result will set clear precedent one way or the other. And should we lose (that's we as in UK, not just Arctic and the PCG) we're looking at an immediate tax bill of around £1.2bn for the rest of the country's husband/wife LtdCos, a major rethink of the way people set up their companies, a clear signal that the Government doesn't believe a spouse to have an equal interest in how the family earns their money, an ongoing additional tax burden for everyone involved and a big F*** You to the British tax-paying middle classes, not to mention the tearing noise as the will of Parliament is discarded in favour of short-term gain. So typical NL politics then...Comment
-
Originally posted by wendigo100I thought it was about a large lorry.
ArcticHow fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't thinkComment
-
What I'm not clear about, though is what the precedent will mean if Arctic win. I have 2/3 of shares, Mrs Old Greg has 1/3.
But from what I've read on this board and elsewhere, HMRC could decide that the circumstances of the Arctic set-up may not be so simple as 'no more going after husband/wife shareholding of one man band Ltds.'
Any ideas from the esteemed members?Comment
-
Originally posted by dang65They said on the radio this morning that the hearing is going to take four days. Will be very interesting anyway. Also, they said that most tax related test cases are paid for by HMRC, but this one is being funded by the couple themselves (and their supporters). I wasn't quite clear what this was supposed to imply, but they did seem to think that was an important point when it was mentioned in the radio article??Comment
-
If they win, no problem. What the law, Parliament, accountancy advice and the DTI have been saying for the last 60 years will stand.
If they lose, expect an aspect enquiry for any company where husband and wife own part shares, and how those shares were acquired by the "sleeping" partner, followed by a demand for up to six years back taxation.Blog? What blog...?Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment