The BN66 thread has broken a record!

[b0redom]

I thought the BN66 thing was all about the dodgy offshore loan way of getting paid, and now that they have closed that loop hole they want to back track and grab all the taxes which were avoided?

Didn't think it had anything to do with IR35?

[NickFitz]

I thought the BN66 thing was all about the dodgy offshore loan way of getting paid, and now that they have closed that loop hole they want to back track and grab all the taxes which were avoided?

Didn't think it had anything to do with IR35?

...which is why I said:

If they get this through, then the next thing they try could be to say that everybody has been IR35-caught since the beginning of time...

The point is that if they are able to turn around and change the rules retrospectively in any way they see fit, contractors who thought they were safely outside IR35 might find themselves to be the next easy target.

After all, they didn't introduce IR35 to catch a tiny number of people, they were hoping for as many as possible to be caught. If they gain the right to change the rules by just saying "Whatever the rules may have said at that time, this is what we actually wanted to happen" then brace yourself...

[EternalOptimist]

...which is why I said:



The point is that if they are able to turn around and change the rules retrospectively in any way they see fit, contractors who thought they were safely outside IR35 might find themselves to be the next easy target.

After all, they didn't introduce IR35 to catch a tiny number of people, they were hoping for as many as possible to be caught. If they gain the right to change the rules by just saying "Whatever the rules may have said at that time, this is what we actually wanted to happen" then brace yourself...

maybe, but perhaps you are being a bit negative. Surely if they can change the tax laws retrospectively, they could just as easily say, we will reduce taxes for IT contractors to 5% and back date it for ten years ?
why always look on the gloomy side ?

[RichardCranium]

... and grab all the taxes which were avoided

... plus, if I have followed the thread correctly, apply penalties and interest on that tax going back to seven years before all this started, which was a year or two ago. So £10k avoided in 2002 would now be something like £15k.


Edit: from Post One on the BN66 thread:

Estimated Accrued Interest

The following percentages are an estimate of the total interest accrued up to June 2009 for each tax year.

Tax Year..........Accrued Interest
2001/2....................46%
2002/3....................40%
2003/4....................34%
2004/5....................26%
2005/6....................20%
2006/7....................12%
2007/8....................4.5%

[scooterscot]

HMRC - I say nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

[minestrone]

The judge has already accepted that the existing rule doesn't apply, and they have changed tack. They are now arguing that, whatever the rules might have been, it's what Parliament actually meant that counts. The fact that the new legislation therefore doesn't apply should, they argue, be ignored, as what they wanted was for it to apply, and that's what Parliament wanted to give them.

In other words, their argument is that the rules are whatever they choose them to be, and if they aren't, they were meant to be; and that they should be able to impose such changes in the rules retrospectively.

The situation is fluid but the wording of the BN66 was to clarify an existing rule.

Anyway, If anyone thought that they could simply shuffle their earnings offshore and then bring it back in without paying a thin dime of tax on any of it deserves to be chased.

[NickFitz]

The situation is fluid but the wording of the BN66 was to clarify an existing rule.

And the judge yesterday accepted that the existing rule did not apply so HMRC are now using different arguments to argue that they can tax retrospectively whether the rule applies or not.

Anyway, If anyone thought that they could simply shuffle their earnings offshore and then bring it back in without paying a thin dime of tax on any of it deserves to be chased.

"If anyone thought they could simply shuffle their earnings around by paying them as expenses and dividends through a limited company to avoid income tax they deserve to be chased."

See the problem there?

[Sysman]

"If anyone thought they could simply shuffle their earnings around by paying them as expenses and dividends through a limited company to avoid income tax they deserve to be chased."

There's another problem with expenses

Tax officers are also concerned doctors may be living as far away as Spain and claiming travel to Britain to see patients.

They still don't seem to get the idea of travel costs being a necessary business expense.

[minestrone]

And the judge yesterday accepted that the existing rule did not apply so HMRC are now using different arguments to argue that they can tax retrospectively whether the rule applies or not.



"If anyone thought they could simply shuffle their earnings around by paying them as expenses and dividends through a limited company to avoid income tax they deserve to be chased."

See the problem there?

I am sorry but I do not fall for these "yes, I am in trouble but if you don't support me now mark my words YOU WILL BE NEXT " manipulation devices. Your point is as daft as the smokers who claimed that once they banned smoking in pubs they would ban drinking in them as well.

I am perfectly happy to argue my position over IR35 and I know that all my money has been taxed at some level, it is on another scale to take your earnings out of the country and bring them back in to escape all taxation which is what the BN66 brigade effectively did. They were fools to think they could get away with it.

[cailin maith]

I am sorry but I do not fall for these "yes, I am in trouble but if you don't support me now mark my words YOU WILL BE NEXT " manipulation devices. Your point is as daft as the smokers who claimed that once they banned smoking in pubs they would ban drinking in them as well.

I am perfectly happy to argue my position over IR35 and I know that all my money has been taxed at some level, it is on another scale to take your earnings out of the country and bring them back in to escape all taxation which is what the BN66 brigade effectively did. They were fools to think they could get away with it.

Minestrone, I am sorry but bollocks. If there is a loophole there to be exploited - why not exploit it... Ltd Co's do for expenses and divs or did before IR35 and continue to do as much as they can get away with.