BN66/S58 update

[normalbloke]

Was there inaction or did HMRC simply think they had a winning case then suddenly discover that actually they didn't? (The reason I ask is that I can't remember and really can't face hunting through the original threads).

They came up with a (flimsy) argument in 2005 based on another case. It was legally refuted by the promoter's legal team and it all went quiet. HMRC then asked everyone to agree to test cases being taken to the First Tier Tribunals. Which people did agree to. The next thing that happened was BN66 and Section 58 of the Finance Act. This closed the loophole going forward but treated it as 'always having had effect' ie retrospection.

[AtW]

btw what is everyone's 'fair share of tax'? 3.5%, 4%, 10%, 40%, 80%? Or should every individual determine what he or she feels is their 'fair share'? No, thought not. That's why we have laws.

What's fair is that people in same circumstances pay same level of tax.

[d000hg]

What's fair is that people in same circumstances pay same level of tax.

Well permies and contractors aren't IN the same circumstances, neither are people who run a business. So then it's fine contractors pay less tax than permies, as long as all of us pay the same.

[AtW]

Last time I checked wikipedia isn't an official dictionary.

-----------
Definition of cheat
verb

1 [no object] act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage:she always cheats at cards
[with object] gain an advantage over or deprive of something by using unfair or deceitful methods; defraud:he had cheated her out of everything she had
informal be sexually unfaithful:his wife was cheating on him

2 [with object] avoid (something undesirable) by luck or skill:she cheated death in a spectacular crash
-----------

Definition of cheat in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)

Is that good enough?

[AtW]

Well permies and contractors aren't IN the same circumstances, neither are people who run a business. So then it's fine contractors pay less tax than permies, as long as all of us pay the same.

Contractors and permies are not indeed in same circumstances.

However 2 contractors who do same job but one uses offshore scheme should not expect to pay 3.5% tax when the other one pays 40%.

If BN66 crowd actually were tax resident in offshore and did job remotely, then no problems with whatever tax they paid locally (in offshore).

[BolshieBastard]

The efficacy of the 3.5% tax paid rubbed their noses in it so much that they tried to close it down and went for the quickest method they could find to do it. Yes it may be morally not 100% ok but HMRC's does have other options. One approach could have been Individual tax tribunals until they won a case which given the current backlog would be roughly 2018 for the first cases. Do you really fancy having this held over you for another 5 years knowing that HMRC will eventually find a winning formula and then use it continually afterwards because that is what they could do if the amendment goes through.

I don't know how to break this to you but HMRC want their pound of flesh. One way or another they are going to get it. And yes IR35 may be a future line of attack - its one reason why I'm not contracting any more.

As for being on a contractor website. For years I was one, the fact I'm walking away from it now doesn't mean that I can't stay here, comment and answer questions for new comers.

LOL! I've news for you, I dont need you to tell me what hmrc want. But that's the issue isnt it, how they go about dealing with people and situations that they didnt correct or act upon timeously.

Do I want this hanging over me for another 5 years? What do you think? Of course I dont. What I want is for this to be decided fairly on the law as it stood in 2001.

If Im found 'guilty' based on that, then I'll pay in full.

I should just add that I wasnt in the scheme long so my exposure and potential penalties are not that big. I wont be bankrupted or forced to sell my home etc. But, that's not the issue.

[vetran]

ISAs are limited as intended by Govt.

But lets say somebody found a loophole that allowed unlimited saving into ISAs so that they could put billions into tax free shares/saving accounts. That of course would be cheating and those who did it should rightfully expected to get squashed.

Actually that would just be bad law, it would need to be changed but not retrospectively.

EBT's etc were around for years in the city, it was just when their use widened in the noughties the government got excited. Too much tax lost via a legal loophole. They faffed about and are now trying to retrospectively close to save face.

WE WILL PAY MORE TO GET THIS MONEY THAN IS DUE.

Close the loophole=done.
Look for weaknesses in the schemes and put the people running the scheme out of business.
charge Individuals backdated tax & no penalties as they believed they were behaving legally if immorally.

Job done.

[AtW]

Close the loophole=done.
Look for weaknesses in the schemes and put the people running the scheme out of business.
charge Individuals backdated tax & no penalties as they believed they were behaving legally if immorally. Job done.

There are highly paid pros who find new loopholes and HMRC is tired of this bulltulip.

I would also if I was them.

They need to redefine what tax evasion is and make it so that anybody who was ruled by court using or promoting artificial structures (like those in BN66, EBTs etc) to reduce tax is a tax evader.

[BolshieBastard]

I'm not "in" IR35.
HTH, you tax-dodging disguised employee.

That's what you think (about being 'in' IR35)]

And I agree with you. Probably 80 - 85% of contractors are what is now classed as 'disguised employee' situations. Yet another example of government changing the rules to suit their taxation dogma.

By all means laugh at the 80 - 85% of contractors who now have to look over their shoulder at this. No doubt you think they are now bound to pay permanent rates of taxation without the trappings of permanent employment.

I think it say a lot about your selfishness and yourself than anything else but each to their own.

[sasguru]

That's what you think (about being 'in' IR35)]

.

No. I know I'm not. I don't fulfil any of the criteria. Even my payment terms are 90 days.
HTH BIKIW.