BN66 - your opinions wanted

[sasguru]

Oh crap, I am going to agree with Pacharan.

I understand what SAS and you others are saying, but every loophole that has been exploited has still been a loophole. If what you guys are supporting were the case then each and every one should have been closed and retrospective taxes collected on those who knowingly exploited them.

Retrospection is wrong.

Would it be unreasonable of HMRC to explain that the intent of IR35 was to tax all freelancers as though they were employees and modify the law accordingly?

I get the point about retrospection, but I don't think it sets a precedent in this case since it was clearly unreasonable for people to assume they could pay nominal tax.

[Arturo Bassick]

I get the point about retrospection, but I don't think it sets a precedent in this case since it was clearly unreasonable for people to assume they could pay nominal tax.

That is where our opinions differ. I do accept your point of how reasonable the assumption was, which is why I tried to make the point in my original post that the legislation always meant what has been clarified. I probably didnt say it too well as usual.

[DaveB]

I get the point about retrospection, but I don't think it sets a precedent in this case since it was clearly unreasonable for people to assume they could pay nominal tax.

It may have been unreasonable in your, and other peoples opionions, but according to the law it was not. HMRC had years to step in and close the schemes down using established processes that everyone understood but for whatever reason they chose not to.

Retrospection here *will* set a precedent because that is they way the British legal system works.

Laws are drafted, the meannig is challenged in the courts and and the decisions made by the judicary direct future decisions on the same or similar issues. A decision that retrospection was acceptable would set a huge precendent for similar decisions in the future becasuue the entire system is based on precedent.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I get the point about retrospection, but I don't think it sets a precedent in this case since it was clearly unreasonable for people to assume they could pay nominal tax.

What about the thousands of people who are still doing it through loan schemes and the like?

For consistency, shouldn't they be clobbered too?

There's even an advert at the top of this page claiming 80% retention. Take off the promoters 10% fee, and you're looking at 10% tax. I will admit it's not quite as piss taking as 3% but still way below the "fair share".

[Churchill]

What about the thousands of people who are still doing it through loan schemes and the like?

For consistency, shouldn't they be clobbered too?

There's even an advert at the top of this page claiming 80% retention. Take off the promoters 10% fee, and you're looking at 10% tax. I will admit it's not quite as piss taking as 3% but still way below the "fair share".

Define "fair share"...

If HMRC can't definitively then who can?

[EternalOptimist]

I am against retrospection but I am equally against sharp legal eagles exploiting inevitable gaps in any complex legislation (like policeman getting off because the double yellow lines did not have a termination bar). There is a conflict here and I am not sure what the answer is

HMRC have been undeniably shoddy and slapdash, but I dont see how that affects the core principle. The core principle being that of the intent. The intent of the law, and the intent of the people who exploited the loopholes.
I was invited to join one of these schemes, and considered it for about 5 milliseconds. Having said that, I really feel for the dudes affected. The gut wrenching uncertainty and fear

it's horrible to contemplate

[shaunbhoy]

What about the thousands of people who are still doing it through loan schemes and the like?

For consistency, shouldn't they be clobbered too?

There's even an advert at the top of this page claiming 80% retention. Take off the promoters 10% fee, and you're looking at 10% tax. I will admit it's not quite as piss taking as 3% but still way below the "fair share".

Maybe they will be next for HMRC?
Anyone that thought they could go on in perpetuity paying 3% really needs their bumps read......and a new accountant at the very least.

[KentPhilip]

If you've never physically been to IoM/Jersey to work, then trying to claim taxation there is pushing your luck IMHO.

To take such a risk and then to have spent the gains is a stroke of genius.

Corrected for you.

HMRC cannot take money from you that you don't have any more. (Just make sure you don't have a house or any fancy cars though...)

[sasguru]

I am against retrospection but I am equally against sharp legal eagles exploiting inevitable gaps in any complex legislation (like policeman getting off because the double yellow lines did not have a termination bar). There is a conflict here and I am not sure what the answer is

HMRC have been undeniably shoddy and slapdash, but I dont see how that affects the core principle. The core principle being that of the intent. The intent of the law, and the intent of the people who exploited the loopholes.I was invited to join one of these schemes, and considered it for about 5 milliseconds. Having said that, I really feel for the dudes affected. The gut wrenching uncertainty and fear

it's horrible to contemplate

I think the highlighted terms cover the important principles in this case.

[BlasterBates]

HMRC haven't prosecuted or demanded penalties, they've just simply recalculated the tax as it would have been, with interest. In other words no-one has lost out. HMRC gets its money and the scheme members are no worse off than they would have been had they been through an umbrella. I think that's how a lot of people see it. It is bad though for people caught by this, though if anyone is responsible, in my view, it's the scheme managers. They know the risks, and the risk you lose everything. They don't communicate it. When I dodged the German equivalent of National Insurance, I knew the risk, the accountant told me what it was, and over the years yes the rules changed retrospectively on how they determine it, so retrospection on clarification isn't so unusual. But these scheme managers still go round peddling this stuff, and no one gets indignant, unbelievable.