Free laptop? Annoyed.

[JaredM]

You really do have a problem with this, don't you?

Stop being a bitter little turd and live with it.

Hi Churchill, I too had the urge to reply to AtW and point out that I don't think anyone on the scheme was paying as little as 3.5 but thought better of it - there's already a BN66 thread for talk to go. Let's keep this thread to the point: Nu Labia are still pissing our money away faster than a crack addict.

[AtW]

I don't think anyone on the scheme was paying as little as 3.5

"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.

[AtW]

You really do have a problem with this, don't you?

Yes.

Stop being a bitter little turd and live with it.

What makes you think I am bitter?

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)

[Xenophon]

Let's keep this thread to the point

There is a first time for everything I guess...

[JaredM]

"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.

That may be the amount the revenue received but doesn't include the rather hefty fees for the scheme operator. Once 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

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).

[AtW]

That 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?

Once 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.

[JaredM]

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.

AtW, you make some good points for discussion but let's take those to a new thread.

[Churchill]

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.

You're just jealous - either that or you're self-righteous *****!

[AtW]

AtW, you make some good points for discussion but let's take those to a new thread.

No mate, I think you've made the best point on here - including hefty scheme fees in argument about tax paid, no wonder HMRC went nuts about it: they got paid less than scheme operators, total and utter piss take.

[AtW]

You're just jealous - either that or you're self-righteous *****!

I am not jealous.

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.