BN66; what the hell is going on over there?

[Churchill]

IMO, slight gap, depending on your interpretation

Not according to interpretation, otherwise there would be no need for retrospection - Shirley?

[Mich the Tester]

Oh, and by the way, hello BBC and hello HMRC

[chef]

link to CUK from BBC would be nice.. BBC.. please

[PAH]

Alot paid IR35 in the early days and eventually used contracts and working practices that put them outside.

They think it's put them outside. What if HMRC decide to clarify the legislation so they're no longer outside, and have all the back tax to pay!

[Moscow Mule]

They think it's put them outside. What if HMRC decide to clarify the legislation so they're no longer outside, and have all the back tax to pay!

Good reason to slash and burn yourco every few years. Maybe with a 3 month spell with a brolly to avoid a charge of phoenixing.

[PAH]

Good reason to slash and burn yourco every few years. Maybe with a 3 month spell with a brolly to avoid a charge of phoenixing.

Alternatively, pour all your profits into a plan B and if it fails you get your corp tax refunded the following year when you file the losses.

[AtW]

Churchill’s got it right. HMRC f**ked up. They left a gaping hole in the legislation, people then used it, then HMRC say ‘that’s not fair’ and retrospectively closed the hole by ‘clarifying’ or ‘putting new convenient spin on’ the legislation.

Revenue's fault? You crack me up - if would be their FAULT if they accidentally printed VAT rate of 50% and then had to return money interest.

Saying that it's a "fault" of HMRC that people paid 3.5% tax rather than 40% is a joke - it's not like it was trivial mistake, people on purpose joined scheme, used it to save MASSIVE amounts of tax they'd have to pay and it's all revenue's fault?

Granted Revenue (in my view) should have closed it sooner rather than later, however they are perfectly entitled to do it later rather than sooner. In fact the net effect might be better because this way, hopefully, there will be less risk takers in trying to dodge tax and more risk takers who actually try to setup companies that are not tax avoidance vehicles but actually wealth generators (not just for their owners).

[AtW]

You're an arse.

And why is that?

[Iron Condor]

They think it's put them outside. What if HMRC decide to clarify the legislation so they're no longer outside, and have all the back tax to pay!

No if you are 'in business on your own account' as well as other pointers put your outside IR35 then the high court etc has said you are out of IR35.

Being legitimately outside IR35 is not a tax dodge, unlike paying just 3.5% using an IOM money washing scheme.

Had the MP scheme been tested in the courts and passed, then it would have been much harder for the government to pass retrospective legislation. Mostly likely would had to have been forward only.

[AtW]

What I don't understand is why all such schemes are not required to get HMRCs approval number and without such number any taxpayer taking part in this scheme should expect automatic heavy duty penalties.