BN66/S58 update

[normalbloke]

120% for you because you are in the group of very greedy and stupid people..

Personal and subjective. Well done.

Legality is a matter of opinion until it is settled in courts.

Agreed. Sense, finally.... Thats all that the scheme users wanted. HMRC didn't bother to go to the courts.

Common sense should have stopped even halfwits back in 2001 to avoid like plague contrived schemes that involved word "offshore" when they reduced tax so much.

Common sense? Yes, the law is an ass. "Halfwits"? Mmmm... brilliant.

It's total utter lie to claim that EVERYBODY could join that crazy scheme, no - that was NOT possible because such loss of tax revenue would be insane and it would get closed next day first million people joined it.

I'm not a liar. The scheme was open to all. The law is an ass. Doesn't stop people acting within it though.

I am the taxpayer who pays what is expected by law - 40% level for high rate taxpayers.

Well that's good isn't it. Try that one on Philip Green and Richard Branson. I'm sure they pay what they are legally bound to pay. I'm not sure its 40% though.

[sasguru]

I point out to you yet again that 'disguised employee' is an artificial device introduced by government and hmrc to increase the tax take from a section of the workforce. Prior to 2000, neither government nor client companies had an issue with people working whether for one client at a time or many. The majority of client companies still have no issue with this method of working which just proves a, its driven by political dogma and b, is totally artificial.

As I have said, you seem to have massive issues with and make derogatory comments about anyone who doesnt conform to your narrow view. You must be one objectionable person.

Perhaps littering your posts with such derogatory comments makes you feel like you have a big penis. Maybe you cannot help it and just are objectionable.

Seriously, I am very happy that you are building a business and hope it is successful for you (even if you do see having 90 day payment terms as some form of badge of honour). I just dont comprehend your bitterness and arrogance. Thankfully, you are a minority.

It's not too late to start to think clearly.

There is clearly an argument that that the setting up of Ltd companies as a vehicle for avoiding tax for what I have termed "disguised employees" i.e. people who aren't really running a business, is wrong.
I have tried to explain what constitutes a business but you seem unable or unwilling to comprehend the difference.
So when I call you stupid, I'm not being "derogatory" or "bitter" or "arrogant", I'm merely stating a fact.
HTH.

[AtW]

I'm not a liar. The scheme was open to all. The law is an ass. Doesn't stop people acting within it though.

I believe that scheme was limited to 300 people and later got expanded to 3000 people.

Everybody could not join it because scheme promoters are fully aware that they should stay under radar - if 300000 joined it then a lot more serious things would happen.

What's open to everybody is registering Ltd and running your own business - you don't need to pay 10% of your income to somebody else for "QC approved exclusive advice".

Well that's good isn't it. Try that one on Philip Green and Richard Branson. I'm sure they pay what they are legally bound to pay. I'm not sure its 40% though.

How dare you to compare yourself with these great business men?

They provide employment to a lot of people and invest a lot of money into this country.

And you were not even paying taxes whilst taking somebody else's job who'd pay such taxes as honestly as it is expected by HMRC.

[sasguru]

90 days voluntarily???

WBBS +1

I'd like shorter terms but them's the normal terms when running a genuine business.
And my contact (ex-HRMC now working for PwC) tells me that is a quite a big marker.

[AtW]

Agreed. Sense, finally.... Thats all that the scheme users wanted. HMRC didn't bother to go to the courts.

Scheme users should expect to get what they deserve rather than what they want.

HMRC did what they felt appropriate and this was upheld in courts.

[vetran]

I'd like shorter terms but them's the normal terms when running a genuine business.
And my contact (ex-HRMC now working for PwC) tells me that is a quite a big marker.

No its not normal. Its exceptional and under duress for most businesses especially now.

I would get a second opinion, if that was so all agencies would offer 90 day terms and unofficially pay sooner.

[sasguru]

No its not normal. Its exceptional and under duress for most businesses especially now.

I would get a second opinion, if that was so all agencies would offer 90 day terms and unofficially pay sooner.

You're still thinking in terms of agencies and such like, which I don't use.
My single client at the moment is German, those were the terms take it or leave it.
Maybe my negotiation skills need improvement. Them's the ups and downs when trying to start a real business.
I'm negotiaiting with a French firm at the moment - let's see what their terms are.
Perhaps now even BB can see the difference between a disguised employee and a real company.

Actually AtW you're the only person on this thread who's running a proper business - what's the norm in payment terms?

[AtW]

if that was so all agencies would offer 90 day terms and unofficially pay sooner.

Agencies supply workforce in disguise so businesses are expected to pay relatively quickly, when they don't agencies have to use factoring to deal with cashflow.

Real business 2 business transactions would be treated differently - 90 days is a tad too long but I've seen big clients of ours pay even longer. Once it took 11 months to get payment

Actually AtW you're the only person on this thread who's running a proper business - what's the norm in payment terms?

We normally take payments up front via credit/debit card, but large businesses like to pay by wire/bank transfer, in those cases it's unusual to get money less than 30 days, probably 60+ days would be normal. On regular long term contracts we get paid regularly but initial delay can be more than 30 days.

Overall we are lucky to be in sector where payments are pretty fast actually.

Banks are screwing businesses with high interest loans, so businesses just extend payment terms. I saw a couple of cases where faster payment (within weeks) was offered in exchange of 2% reduction in invoice

[normalbloke]

How dare you to compare yourself with these great business men?

They provide employment to a lot of people and invest a lot of money into this country.

And you were not even paying taxes whilst taking somebody else's job who'd pay such taxes as honestly as it is expected by HMRC.

You have to laugh at your view of the real world.... I preferred you when you had that large frozen cock as your avatar. Self advertisment I assume.

So how many people should my business employ before I get to pay less tax?
How many overseas offices should I set up to divert my profit to the lowest taxed country?
How much should I earn before setting up private family trust structures and making my wife the registered owner and CEO of the holding company?

Perhaps I should ask Philip or Richard as I'm sure they would know.

"..as honestly as it is expected by HMRC" Surely.. as honestly as expected by law.? HMRC don't make the laws (or didn't until S58, Finance Act 2008)

Cheerio... I've tried to keep this factual and legal but I can't debate with a blind sheep. . Bye.

[sasguru]

Agencies supply workforce in disguise so businesses are expected to pay relatively quickly, when they don't agencies have to use factoring to deal with cashflow.

Aye. As I said disguised employees need their "salary" every month

Real business 2 business transactions would be treated differently - 90 days is a tad too long but I've seen big clients of ours pay even longer. Once it took 11 months to get payment

They've paid the first inv. on time, 11 months would bankrupt me