BN66/S58 update

[fullyautomatix]

Does make you wonder why someone who has never worked as a contractor 'lives' on a contractor website, setting himself up to be lord high and mighty, doesnt it?

I mean its like a motor mechanic signing up to a vetenary website and telling the vets how to stick their arm up a cow's arse.

Clearly, you and others have your mind set. You dont want to recognise that a government did nothing for 8 years then introduced legislation that retrospectively changed the law.

The efficacy of the 3.5% tax paid is really immaterial.

And who are you to set a deadline to the government ? Is it the case of I have robbed a bank and its been 5 years since and so far I have not been caught and therefore I am free !

[AtW]

Does make you wonder why someone who has never worked as a contractor 'lives' on a contractor website, setting himself up to be lord high and mighty, doesnt it?

I've done a short bit of contracting years ago - around 30 days in total but well paid, certainly not covered by IR35

The reason I am here is because I quite like the place - there is a good bunch of people on here and in dark days of permiedom in my previous job this site was the ray of light that kept me sane.

This place helped me improve my written English as well.

The efficacy of the 3.5% tax paid is really immaterial.

If it's that immaterial why did not you pay tax at 40% rate like everybody else?

[vetran]

That's a pretty naive, idealistic view of things. It sounds almost like you believe in some kind of superstitious karma nonsense!

People "get away" with exploiting loopholes all the time and have done for decades/centuries. The government close them down as they become aware, just as new drugs start off legal but then get criminalised as they become known about.

Pretty much every multinational does it. But they have better lawyers than a bunch of contractors.

HMRC were aware of the schemes years ago, they actually had the schemes notify them, if they had changed the law or closed the schemes at that time going forward most people would have said that's fair.

To go back now seems just as fair as giving Vodafone a massive discount.

To charge individuals penalties & interest for being part of a registered scheme seems a little unreasonable.

Imagine if HMRC closed all ISA's retrospectively and sent you a retrospective bill + penalties?

[eek]

The efficacy of the 3.5% tax paid is really immaterial.

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.

[normalbloke]

"Cheating refers to an immoral way of achieving a goal"

Cheating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exploiting a flaw (hole) in the rules would qualify as cheating.

Exactly. Immoral does not equal illegal. And in this country I'd rather be judged on a law, then judged by someone else's morality (especially MP's, ironically). People will always exploit loopholes. Get over it. Have a go at the law makers if you have a moral soap box you wish to stand on.

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.

People should have a right to be judged on the law as it stood at the time someone disagreed with their interpretation. We have a court system to rule on this. (The Judicial Review on the BN66 case was debated on an entirely different issue).

7 years of inaction, when the loophole was openly known about and then closed retrospectively when HMRC couldn't come up with a challenge is the real immoral act here. I know you won't see that but there are an awful lot of people that will and realise that its a slippery slope to allow it to go unchallenged.

[eek]

7 years of inaction, when the loophole was openly known about and then closed retrospectively when HMRC couldn't come up with a challenge is the real immoral act here. I know you won't see that but there are an awful lot of people that will and realise that its a slippery slope to allow it to go unchallenged.

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).

[normalbloke]

And who are you to set a deadline to the government ? Is it the case of I have robbed a bank and its been 5 years since and so far I have not been caught and therefore I am free !

Not at all. If you were caught now, you'd be judged on the law as it stood 5 years ago when you committed the offence.

[sasguru]

So, are you paying yourself what you deem to be a 'realistic' wage or a realistic amount of tax? I take it, because you claim you are paying yourself a realistic wage, you are still avoiding the full tax take under IR35 otherwise you'd have said you were fully compliant with IR35. But you're not.

See where your 'moral' argument has got you? No, you probably dont.

Oh, and I've news for you, paying yourself a 'reasonable wage' doesnt mean hmrc wont investigate you. Even if you show them you've paid a 'realistic wage,' if its less than you should have paid under IR35, you're still evading (note not avoiding) your tax obligations.

Enjoy!

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

[d000hg]

No it's the exact opposite of that. What is naive is to think you can get away with 3.5% tax.
Luckily it wasn't in your time or you would one be one of these moaning idiots, no doubt.

People have got away with tax dodges since tax has existed. Retrospective legislation is NOT the norm therefore most of them got away with it and claiming "it was obvious they'd get caught" is simply you trying to look clever after the event.

"Cheating refers to an immoral way of achieving a goal"

Cheating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exploiting a flaw (hole) in the rules would qualify as cheating.

Last time I checked wikipedia isn't an official dictionary. And no, it wouldn't. If a sportsman exploits a hole in the rules he is using the rules, which is part of the game. If he cheated, he would be penalised/disqualified - one is legal, the other isn't. For instance a goal-keeper taking more time with a goal kick when his team lead with only a few seconds to go.

[AtW]

Imagine if HMRC closed all ISA's retrospectively and sent you a retrospective bill + penalties?

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.