What's the big deal with BN66?

[Mich the Tester]

A fool proof scheme to reduce tax from around 40% to 3.6% using artificial offshore scheme. Great references from leading barristers available, and the best part you don't have to leave your country of residence, interested? Contact us here (NSFTE).

I would take advice from a tax lawyer before doing so.

[Churchill]

Would you pay a tenner for me to shut up for a week?

I'd pay a tenner to someone else to shut you up for a week.

[AtW]

I'd pay a tenner to someone else to shut you up for a week.

I hope that won't be MarillionFan

[Churchill]

I hope that won't be MarillionFan

He's a pussycat.

[AtW]

I would take advice from a tax lawyer before doing so.

If you do, which is a smart thing, then make sure you ask whether lawyer would channel his own money through it.

[BolshieBastard]

I thought they could do that already? Although they still have to prove your contract(s) fall within it, no?

The point being most contractors insist \ consider \ assume \ contend, whatever description you want to use, that their contracts are outside IR35.

All of a sudden, HMRC decide to open IR35 investigations on these and go back 6 or whatever years and then demand IR35 taxes.

Those gobbing off about Montpelier now, will they be so self righteous when they find they could, potentially, have an IR35 tax bill every bit as big as some are facing now under BN66?

Would they say the argument 'your tax planning was dodgey' or 'you should have made provision to pay the IR35 taxes' dont wash when they are caught?

[ratewhore]

The point being most contractors insist \ consider \ assume \ contend, whatever description you want to use, that their contracts are outside IR35.

All of a sudden, HMRC decide to open IR35 investigations on these and go back 6 or whatever years and then demand IR35 taxes.

Those gobbing off about Montpelier now, will they be so self righteous when they find they could, potentially, have an IR35 tax bill every bit as big as some are facing now under BN66?

Would they say the argument 'your tax planning was dodgey' or 'you should have made provision to pay the IR35 taxes' dont wash when they are caught?

Fair point, well made, although I don't personally think a direct comparison can be made.

For me, it's a risk based decision. I had a look at the offshore schemes, considered it to be too risky, and stayed Ltd. There is a risk of IR35 sure, but that is mitigated by ensuring, as best I can, that my contract and working practices are appropriate, and I also have insurance to cover the investigation and any penalties.

Ultimately, it all boils down to how much risk people are prepared to take.

[DS23]

i am making ir35 provision. aren't you?

[Churchill]

Fair point, well made, although I don't personally think a direct comparison can be made.

For me, it's a risk based decision. I had a look at the offshore schemes, considered it to be too risky, and stayed Ltd. There is a risk of IR35 sure, but that is mitigated by ensuring, as best I can, that my contract and working practices are appropriate, and I also have insurance to cover the investigation and any penalties.

Ultimately, it all boils down to how much risk people are prepared to take.

Risks can be assessed on information presented to you and certain assumptions derived from past behaviour/current regulations etc.

I don't think anyone expected HMRC to change the rules and back-date them.

[AtW]

The difference in extra tax to be paid will be much lower in IR35 case vs near zero offshore - this is exactly what attracted HMRC and rightfully so: that's why it's sensible (or even logical) to stay away from these schemes, but then again greed tends to shut off that part of the brain.