Moira Stuart 'Tax Doesn't Have To Taxing' Avoids PAYE Tax

[SunnyInHades]

From the news section of this site (Moira Stuart joins limited company tax-saving row :: Contractor UK)

Apparently even Moira is using min wage + divs .. gotta hand it to the girl, she used this for her fees for this years “tax doesn’t have to be taxing" campaign !

LOL

[SimonMac]

[PAH]

Maybe the MPs do the same. After all turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

[WotNxt]

This is my favourite bit:

"But Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs dismissed claims that its public face is a tax avoider, reportedly saying Stuart “is not employed by us, so there is no question of disguised employment.”"

If only this were true we would all be in the clear!!!

Did HMRC really say this?????

[Arturo Bassick]

This is my favourite bit:

"But Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs dismissed claims that its public face is a tax avoider, reportedly saying Stuart “is not employed by us, so there is no question of disguised employment.”"

If only this were true we would all be in the clear!!!

Did HMRC really say this?????

This is a case that shows IR35 for the farce it is. I hope we can all use that quote if we are investigated.

It is obvious in all respects that Stuart is not nor was she intended to be an employee in any way shape or form. I would guess that he contract under close scrutiny would show her to be IR35 caught. Not sure about MOO, but I doubt she can show risk, she would certainly be under control and direction and can not provide a sub.

[MrRobin]

This is my favourite bit:

"But Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs dismissed claims that its public face is a tax avoider, reportedly saying Stuart “is not employed by us, so there is no question of disguised employment.”"

If only this were true we would all be in the clear!!!

Did HMRC really say this?????

Well spotted!!! I wish there was a source quoted... CUK... can you verify where that quote came from? Surely the PCG can use that as ammo in any investigation?

[AtW]

"But Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs dismissed claims that its public face is a tax avoider, reportedly saying Stuart “is not employed by us, so there is no question of disguised employment.”"

Well, there is nothing to suggest she was employed - they could have used Madonna for ad campaign and pay her into her limited company and that would not mean Madonna is employed by HMRC.

That's a very bad example of the tax dodging - now people in senior positions in civil service and quangoes working full time certainly should be looked at.

[MrRobin]

Again, there is no mention of personal tax... in that if Mrs Stuart had extracted the money from her company as dividends she would be paying an additional 35% on it.

[philip@wellwoodhoyle]

Well, there is nothing to suggest she was employed - they could have used Madonna for ad campaign and pay her into her limited company and that would not mean Madonna is employed by HMRC.

But if they'd contracted for Moira to do the ads, but Moira's firm sent Madonna instead, would HMRC have accepted it? I think not, so presumably the substitution clause (if any) is invalid, which in turns leads to the assumption that HMRC wanted Moira to do it personally, hence getting close to IR35 territory as no valid substitution clause!! (Of course, no doubt other contract terms etc would point away from IR35 hopefully!).

[AtW]

But if they'd contracted for Moira to do the ads, but Moira's firm sent Madonna instead, would HMRC have accepted it?

I am sure they hired her firm for her specifically and that does not make her employee, perhaps your point is that IR35 is such a tulip piece of legislation that it can make legitimate contracting work look like employment in disguise.