Those affected by BN66

[cojak]

How is canvassing the boards opinion on probably one of the most important topics affecting contractors winding people up?

It isn't. The BN66 thread isn't to be touched, anything in General is canvassing.

[cojak]

Those who voted that we're tax dodgers, remember the phrase "what goes around, comes around".

Consider the current furore regarding Personal Service Companies and ask yourselves the possibility of PSC's being outlawed in the next budget or near future.

Keep that picture in your mind. Now think about whether HMRC would be tempted to crank up the time machine and retrospectively collect NI + interest for the years you have been in business.

I didn't think that Personal Service Company was a legal entity.

How can something that doesn't legally exist in the 1st place be outlawed?

[smalldog]

Those who voted that we're tax dodgers, remember the phrase "what goes around, comes around".

Consider the current furore regarding Personal Service Companies and ask yourselves the possibility of PSC's being outlawed in the next budget or near future.

Keep that picture in your mind. Now think about whether HMRC would be tempted to crank up the time machine and retrospectively collect NI + interest for the years you have been in business.

And for all those contracting and not paying full tax considered "fair" in the current climate who voted tax dodgers it's hypocritical and watch ur backs. It's the thin end of the wedge and nobody's safe.

[cojak]

I haven't been a member of any loans scheme or any EBT scheme.

I even pay NI.

I might even have been considered a mug not so long ago.

So if it's all the same to you I'll pay my dues to the PCG and see what happens.

[travellingknob]

I haven't been a member of any loans scheme or any EBT scheme.

I even pay NI.

I might even have been considered a mug not so long ago.

So if it's all the same to you I'll pay my dues to the PCG and see what happens.

Do you pay both Employers AND Employees NI ? Are you essentially self employed and just running a Ltd Co. and/or PSC for the purposes of invoicing to clients who wont engage self employed contractors directly ? Do you have any clue about the potential impact of retrospection beyond BN66 ? Do you set out to maximise the amount of tax you pay or minimise it ?
These are all questions which are personal to ones circumstances and ultimately lead you to make decisions on how best to structure your business.
Everyone caught by BN66 paid NI as far as im aware.

[TalkingCheese]

Amazing!

I am amazed at the percentage of people on this poll that believe it is ok to change the law with retrospective effect, and to take 7 years to do it (all the time the retro interest is growing). I would suggest that for most involved it is the interest that will be the undoing.

I reckon that most if not all who are caught by this farce are upstanding citizens, wishing to maximise income (within the law) to give their families the best life possible. Instead the reverse is happening.

Watch out for the speeding tickets when the 20mph speed limit is introduced back to 1995 or the 30% lower tax rate applied retrospectively when the country's deficit is against the wall. Sure these are extreme but there are a lot of grey areas in between and the floodgates are open.

Make sure you are whiter than white and then you can perhaps live in peaceful enjoyment of your possessions.

[Churchill]

We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

There is no such thing as a good tax.

Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law.

And my personal favourite...

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Churchill - In "Sir Winston" mode!

[BrilloPad]

I am amazed at the percentage of people on this poll that believe it is ok to change the law with retrospective effect

Remember that those who voted are anonymous behind a keyboard. Schadenfreude does not begin to descibe the level of posters here.

Personally I think it provides valuable insight into how the general public will feel if our case becomes public.

[Arturo Bassick]

I am amazed at the percentage of people on this poll that believe it is ok to change the law with retrospective effect, and to take 7 years to do it (all the time the retro interest is growing). I would suggest that for most involved it is the interest that will be the undoing.

I reckon that most if not all who are caught by this farce are upstanding citizens, wishing to maximise income (within the law) to give their families the best life possible. Instead the reverse is happening.

Watch out for the speeding tickets when the 20mph speed limit is introduced back to 1995 or the 30% lower tax rate applied retrospectively when the country's deficit is against the wall. Sure these are extreme but there are a lot of grey areas in between and the floodgates are open.

Make sure you are whiter than white and then you can perhaps live in peaceful enjoyment of your possessions.

A number of us believe that the law was not retrospective and that the scheme was itself a ridiculous interpretation that was never going to fly. BN66 was just a clarification of a law that had existed for over 20 years. It only required clarification because a number of clowns were insisting that their interpretation was correct.
How anybody could believe that they would only pay 3% tax on their earned income is naive to say the least, particularly when the income was wholly earned in the UK by the individual but was diverted offshore to take advantage of income earned abroad and declared as trust income.
I believe the tax man has always had the ability to completely ignore any scheme set up with the sole purpose of avoiding tax.

[d000hg]

Yep, there's a conflict in my (and probably many others') minds between a)retrospective law changes are wrong b)they were idiots to think they'd get away with it

Now two wrongs shouldn't cancel each other out, but you only have to look at CUK to find many feel "getting what you deserve" is fine and dandy.