BN66/S58 update

[shaunbhoy]

Never underestimate the extent of someone's gullibility

This from a Motherwell fan too!

[centurian]

^^ This, unfortunately. I'm currently working with an experienced contractor who is with Bedouin. On the long drives down to Halalifax, I've tried to talk him out of it, but, he's had his head filled with crap from the agent, like 'QC Approved' 'no risk' etc etc.

Ah, that's another favourite... And strictly speaking, they are absolutely correct - just you need to understand the context of what they mean.

In most cases, it does not mean "no risk... of having to pay anything more to HMRC".

What it often means is "no risk... of having to pay anything more than you would have done if you had not been in the scheme and had gone through full PAYE umbrella instead, plus interest... and maybe penalties as well" I.e. "no risk of being any worse than the worst case scenario"...

And of course, most contractors assume "no risk" is the first one, they put little money aside...

[SantaClaus]

It's not gullibility, it's selectively hearing what they want to hear. I don't believe anyone paying 3.5% tax via a wholly artificial tax-avoidance scheme wasn't fully aware how risky it was, they just constructed a justification in their heads that ignored the obvious truth. These people aren't victims.

The moral case doesn't matter much anyway. The High Court have said the retrospective measures are legal, the public would clearly be on the side of anti-avoidance, and with the state of the government finances it would be a big scandal if Osbourne were to let this go. Paying some unheard of MPs to support you isn't going to help. It might be better to just pay up and accept your gamble went south.

You might be feeling smug at the moment. But wait until the govt. tighten the IR35 screws even tighter and every single contractor is "caught". They will probably decide to apply the rules retrospectively too, because our case has set a very important precedent. Then you might not be feeling so clever.

[mudskipper]

You might be feeling smug at the moment. But wait until the govt. tighten the IR35 screws even tighter and every single contractor is "caught". They will probably decide to apply the rules retrospectively too, because our case has set a very important precedent. Then you might not be feeling so clever.

I have money set aside for that eventuality.

[AtW]

our case has set a very important precedent

It would set even bigger precedent if it turns out that people can cheat HMRC on a massive scale, drag it on later for years through courts and then (after losing comprehensively) just pay lobbysts to change the law.

[shaunbhoy]

It would set even bigger precedent if it turns out that people can cheat HMRC on a massive scale, drag it on later for years through courts and then (after losing comprehensively) just pay lobbysts to change the law.

Are we talking "sweetheart deals" here?

[centurian]

I have money set aside for that eventuality.

WHS.

Even using Ltd, I know exactly what my worst-case IR35 liability would be - and that money is set aside until 6 years have ticked by.

[AtW]

Are we talking "sweetheart deals" here?

Such deals ain't done in public voting

[AtW]

Even using Ltd, I know exactly what my worst-case IR35 liability would be - and that money is set aside until 6 years have ticked by.

Make it 60 years just to be sure.

mudskipper is she who must be obeyed...

[centurian]

It would set even bigger precedent if it turns out that people can cheat HMRC on a massive scale, drag it on later for years through courts and then (after losing comprehensively) just pay lobbysts to change the law.

Given other stuff/cases that have gone on, not sure it needs this case to set that precedent.