Originally posted by Churchill
View Post
- 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!
Free laptop? Annoyed.
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by JaredM View PostI don't think anyone on the scheme was paying as little as 3.5
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8484955.stm
I don't know if everyone on that scheme paid only 3.5% tax, however your assertion that nobody did so appears to be incorrect.Comment
-
Originally posted by Churchill View PostYou really do have a problem with this, don't you?
Originally posted by Churchill View PostStop being a bitter little turd and live with it.
I don't b1tch about retrospective removal of legitimate CGT taper relief as near as much as I should do, and unlike such schemes this wasn't an artificial arrangement designed primarily to reduce tax paid. Effectively this means I'll pay double the amount of tax I should have. I certainly will though once I pay it (no tax due yet)Comment
-
Originally posted by JaredM View PostLet's keep this thread to the point
Rule #76: No excuses. Play like a champion.Comment
-
Originally posted by AtW View Post"The judge said that the overall effect had been to reduce Mr Huitson's tax rate to just 3.5%.""
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8484955.stm
I don't know if everyone on that scheme paid only 3.5% tax, however your assertion that nobody did so appears to be incorrect.
Edit to add: the only reason at all this matters is because a tax-payer keeping 96.5% is probably more likely to irritate people than if the tax-payer kept 80-85% (a figure they could probably achieve pre-IR35).Last edited by JaredM; 8 February 2010, 13:15.Comment
-
Originally posted by JaredM View PostThat may be the amount the revenue received but doesn't include the rather hefty fees for the scheme operator.
So you think those hefty fees should be included in tax paid calculation?
Originally posted by JaredM View PostOnce you include that you'd figure the take-home was 80-85%. All I'm saying is, its unlikely Huitson got to keep the other 96.5% which is what might be incorrectly inferred from what the judge said.
Yes I sure you are right, his take home certainly was below 96.5%, but that's beyond point - the point is that he (according to source I referenced above) paid 3.5% tax. The costs of scheme etc are completely irrelevant to this side of things.Comment
-
Originally posted by AtW View Post
So you think those hefty fees should be included in tax paid calculation?
Yes I sure you are right, his take home certainly was below 96.5%, but that's beyond point - the point is that he (according to source I referenced above) paid 3.5% tax. The costs of scheme etc are completely irrelevant to this side of things.Comment
-
Originally posted by AtW View Post
So you think those hefty fees should be included in tax paid calculation?
Yes I sure you are right, his take home certainly was below 96.5%, but that's beyond point - the point is that he (according to source I referenced above) paid 3.5% tax. The costs of scheme etc are completely irrelevant to this side of things.Comment
-
Originally posted by JaredM View PostAtW, you make some good points for discussion but let's take those to a new thread.Comment
-
Originally posted by Churchill View PostYou're just jealous - either that or you're self-righteous *****!
I don't think I am self-righteous - following common sense and reasonable laws does not make one so.
What I am not though is a tax "avoider" who takes total and utter piss at common sense.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