Originally posted by malvolio
- 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
-
-
Originally posted by Old GregWell, I've only been trading 3 months so I'm not too worried.Blog? What blog...?Comment
-
Originally posted by malvolioLucky you. There are about 70,000 people who will be...The squint, the cocked eye and clenched first are the cornerstones of all Merseyside communication from birth to graveComment
-
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.
There is a lot of opinion that it should have happened in this case, and I agree with that.
not to mention the tearing noise as the will of Parliament is discarded in favour of short-term gain. So typical NL politics then...
I guess the will of parliament might potentially be used to undermine the apparently fanciful revenue assertions about interpretation.
I do want HMRC to lose, believe they should and hope they will. I imagine that will then give rise to some tinkering in the legislation that will achieve much the same result as HMRC winning. It'll become known as the "Jones amendment"Comment
-
Originally posted by malvolio, not to mention the tearing noise as the will of Parliament is discarded in favour of short-term gain.
The suggestion that the Will of Parliment supports the viewpoint of the Jones' is an arguement for the defence, it isn't a cast in stone fact.
timComment
-
But the Chancellor (Geofery Howe) standing up in HoC and stating categorically that the introduction of separate taxation for man and wife will result in "people re-arranging their affairs to take advantage adn this is entirely expected and approriate" is a pretty fair indication that right is with the Jones, not with Gay Gordon. You can't lightly disregard clear statements of intent.Blog? What blog...?Comment
-
On another thread, THEPUMA has said:
'...the exemption in what was s660 requires there to be an outright gift. So you cannot use this exemption unless you issue all the shares to one spouse and then gift some to the other.
Sorry for brief response got to go out but will elaborate later if noone else does in the meantime.'
This is why I was concerned, even if Arctic win. I'm pretty confused by all this.Comment
-
Originally posted by malvolioBut the Chancellor (Geofery Howe) standing up in HoC and stating categorically that the introduction of separate taxation for man and wife will result in "people re-arranging their affairs to take advantage adn this is entirely expected and approriate" is a pretty fair indication that right is with the Jones, not with Gay Gordon. You can't lightly disregard clear statements of intent.
What is at issue is surely whether the gift was a right to income (or that there is no gift involved).Comment
-
Originally posted by ASBUnfortunately the law lords can and do disregard statements of intent. Clearly what the Jones' did is IMO undoubtedly within the intent. That is not the point. The legislation seems quite clear that a gift which is a right to income is clearly caught.
What is at issue is surely whether the gift was a right to income (or that there is no gift involved).How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't thinkComment
-
Originally posted by TrollThat assumes the gift is a sure cert for income, there is an element of risk attached, is that not relevant?
Page 32 contains the wording of the legislation.
Opinion: In order for there to be a settlement there must be some element of gift (e.g. not paying full whack for it - however that might be defined).
Exemptions:
The gift is made to somebody you are not married to (or now in civil partnership with). Para 3 a.
An absolute gift to a spouse (Para 6) is exempt. However if the gift is a right to income it isn't. [Whether this can take in ordinary shares is a matter of debate]
It seems to me that if a shareholding was sold or given to somebody you are not married to then it's safe.
If it is given to a wife then you are safe - unless HMRC can succeed in arguing that the shares are substantially a right to income.
If it is sold to a wife at a nominal value then there is risk anyway because of the element of gift.
If it is sold to a wife at the market value you are then safe (however agreeing what the hell that value should be could be interesting).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