Down

[OwlHoot]

Football is for pooftas

WHS

Are you up for joining our fantasy croquet league?

[NotAllThere]

... IR35 is about working practices and being a disguised employee. It was to stop people being permie one day and a contractor the next....

Not correct. That was (one of) the reasons given by the government. But the real reason was to try to turn all contractors into employees... and stop the tax avoidance of contractors using ltd companies, which was seen as "unfair".

Re: BN66. While exploiting loopholes is perfectly acceptable in my view, there is always a chance that HMRC will come after the avoided tax. Anyone who isn't aware of that was in la la land (with fingers in their ears). The more artificial the exploitation, the greater the risk. So I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for those affected. HMRC is bigger than you - annoy them enough, and they'll fight you and win - because they've the government on their side (largely). Yes, it's unfair. But that's the way the world is.

The important point is that the retrospective nature of HMRC's attack, no matter how some might feel it is justified, sets a dangerous precedent. For that reason, and that reason alone, it should be resisted.

[Incognito]

Not correct. That was (one of) the reasons given by the government. But the real reason was to try to turn all contractors into employees... and stop the tax avoidance of contractors using ltd companies, which was seen as "unfair".

How is that not the same as what I said? I simply put it across in a more formal construct.

The important point is that the retrospective nature of HMRC's attack, no matter how some might feel it is justified, sets a dangerous precedent. For that reason, and that reason alone, it should be resisted.

The original 1987 legislation was applied retrospectively, you'd think that would sort of be identified as a precedent. In all of this, the only people who are losing out are the 'small people.' HMRC will still get their pound of flesh and the scheme providers have still got their fees and built their business up over the years off the back of this.

[shaunbhoy]

How is that not the same as what I said? I simply put it across in a more formal construct.



The original 1987 legislation was applied retrospectively, you'd think that would sort of be identified as a precedent. In all of this, the only people who are losing out are the 'small people.' HMRC will still get their pound of flesh and the scheme providers have still got their fees and built their business up over the years off the back of this.

Moving on, don't the terms "HMRC", "pound of flesh", and "retrospectively" send a shiver down your spine as a Gers fan?

[Churchill]

Moving on, don't the terms "HMRC", "pound of flesh", and "retrospectively" send a shiver down your spine as a Gers fan?

Yep, just the same as the thought of the Dutch kicking the arses of the French. Your turn.

[NickFitz]

The important point is that the retrospective nature of HMRC's attack, no matter how some might feel it is justified, sets a dangerous precedent. For that reason, and that reason alone, it should be resisted.

Exactly. If there's a loophole, close the loophole; but you can't just turn round and say "Hey, that thing you did that was legal? Well now it wasn't, so **** you."

As I've said in this context before, how would people like it if HMRC had legislation passed that said that, no matter what the circumstances of your contracts at the time, you had actually been caught by IR35 all along and owed them accordingly. This is basically what they've done over BN66.

[Incognito]

Exactly. If there's a loophole, close the loophole; but you can't just turn round and say "Hey, that thing you did that was legal? Well now it wasn't, so **** you."

As I've said in this context before, how would people like it if HMRC had legislation passed that said that, no matter what the circumstances of your contracts at the time, you had actually been caught by IR35 all along and owed them accordingly. This is basically what they've done over BN66.

No it ****ing isn't. The existing legislation was passed in 1987 to stop the abuse of the DTA treaty. All this new scheme did was try to exploit that same loophole with a different mechanism. It's all to do with the vehicle that was set up to exploit the DTA treaty. Parliament said you will not exploit the treaty to circumvent paying tax that was due in the UK. Full stop. No if, no but, no maybe.

IR35 states you will not exploit the limited company avenue to avoid paying PAYE/NI. You are inside or outside IR35 due to your personal working circumstances, nothing else. One individual's circumstances does not affect another individual's circumstances as it is a subjective test.

[Incognito]

Moving on, don't the terms "HMRC", "pound of flesh", and "retrospectively" send a shiver down your spine as a Gers fan?

Nah, that's Davie Moonbeams debt now.

[shaunbhoy]

Nah, that's Davie Moonbeams debt now.

You wish!!!

[fullyautomatix]

Exactly. If there's a loophole, close the loophole; but you can't just turn round and say "Hey, that thing you did that was legal? Well now it wasn't, so **** you."

I got it now. I agree with Nick.

Its like this. Its illegal to break in to a house and steal. However, you may find a house where the owner forgot to lock his back door. In theory, you can go into this house via this back door and help yourself to the goods. This is legal. You are allowed to do that. If you want to stop this you need to close the door.