What's the big deal with BN66?

[IR35 Avoider]

If you were avoiding tax using off-shore schemes then you've signed your own warrant IMO.

If it were legit then all of us would be doing it, but we're not. Why do you suppose that is?

It's got far more attention than it deserves me thinks....

If it were legit? The big deal is that it doesn't matter whether it was legit. The judge in this case said it might have been. The big deal is that you can't know whether anything is legit, because even if you know it is legal to do X in 2010, without a time machine, you can't be sure in 2010 that a law passed in 2020 won't change what was legal in 2010.

[Churchill]

If it were legit? The big deal is that it doesn't matter whether it was the legit. The judge in this case said it might well have been. The big deal is that you can't know whether anything is legit, because even if you know it is legal to do X in 2010, without a time machine, you can't be sure in 2010 that a law passed in 2020 won't change what was legal in 2010.

You're pissing in the wind!

[AtW]

The judge in this case said it might well have been.

He would not say it was illegal or not because that's not what the case was about, and the reason he mentioned it (in my view) was to ensure that it appears to be irrelevant if its legal or not.

Nothing is legal for certain unless it's tested in court, many times over and even after that things can change.

[Incognito]

I've studiously tried to avoid that myself, but the main reason I got booted out of the original BN66 thread was for predicting exactly what happened and why. Heigh ho.

The thing is, though, this is by no means the end of it. The BN66 team are going to appeal and several signficant representative groups are protesting the acceptance of retrospection as a principle of taxation. Killing the MP scheme isn't a problem, that's simply HMG exercising its right to make laws, but allowing retrospective changes is serious.

As long as the PCG aren't one of them Mal. The moment I hear the PCG are in any way supporting the case of those in the MontP scheme then the PCG loses my membership fees.

[ratewhore]

As long as the PCG aren't one of them Mal. The moment I hear the PCG are in any way supporting the case of those in the MontP scheme then the PCG loses my membership fees.

Fair point.

As I said before, I don't know enough about what has changed and what has been clarified to make a judgement on whether the retrospective nature is wrong. As no one can give me an answer as to whether any legislation has changed, it seems to me that the outrage bus is full yet people are not clear why they are sat on it...

[malvolio]

PCG have always had to take a neutral line on the offshore things, and always advise extreme caution about using them. However without analysing every one in detail they aren't going to comment on them directly. AFAIK only a couple of PCG people are affected. There's no evidence that PCG are supporting any part of this specific case.

However they have come out against the retrospective element of the BN66 case on the basis is sets a very dangerous precedent. Which, I believe, is the right thing to do.

[normalbloke]

He would not say it was illegal or not because that's not what the case was about, and the reason he mentioned it (in my view) was to ensure that it appears to be irrelevant if its legal or not.

Nothing is legal for certain unless it's tested in court, many times over and even after that things can change.

Sadly, it seems legality has gone out of the window to be replaced by subjective opinion in the court of public opinion.

I (mistakenly) thought that if people broke no laws, then they weren't doing anything wrong and thereby deserved no punishment.....

And you are so naive, my friend if you think it will now stop here. It seems daily we read about another new law being retrospectively applied. None of us in the contracting community should feel safe, unless you are 100% PAYE.

In the past opinions like yours thankfully counted for Jack Sh*t in a court of law. Unfortunately now, the law itself does as well.

[AtW]

they weren't doing anything wrong and thereby deserved no punishment.....

If you are paying 3.5% tax instead of ~40% that would normally be expected to be paid then it is a pretty darn good hint that you are probably doing something wrong.

[FarmerPalmer]

Ah, but if you had enough grey matter you wouldn’t live in the UK under a Labour government.

but you can't just leave the country ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8519803.stm

[normalbloke]

If you are paying 3.5% tax instead of ~40% that would normally be expected to be paid then it is a pretty darn good hint that you are probably doing something wrong.

I bow to your superior legal knowledge.

(and do you honestly think the top 10% of earners in this country pay ~40% tax?????? .... or even those contractors working through a Ltd sharing out dividends etc?... boy, are you living in a parallel utopian universe...)