HMRC consultation on tackling marketed schemes

[stonehenge]

Specifically mentions contractor schemes on page 7.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload..._avoidance.pdf

The No To Retro campaign have drafted a letter if anyone is interested in responding.
Latest News | No To Retrospective Taxation

[AtW]

What's consultation on FUTURE legislation got to do with No To Retro campaign?

[eek]

Specifically mentions contractor schemes on page 7.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload..._avoidance.pdf

The No To Retro campaign have drafted a letter if anyone is interested in responding.
Latest News | No To Retrospective Taxation

And if you had read the threads around them you would see that even NTRT actually support some of the ideas to discourage slick salesmen selling such schemes to unwary new contractors.

There are bits the proposal that I dislike on reflection at the moment I actually think some of the bits don't go far enough:-

I would like a standard warning to be displayed alongside a DOTAS number stating that tax may need to be paid in advance before a tax tribunals deciding whether the scheme is legitimate and that you not seeking independent advice before joining a scheme may result in your case being treated as evasion rather than avoidance.

The bits I dislike are the following and retrospective bits so I'm objecting to them. For the actual concept of payment prior to tribunal I just want it so obvious that the scummy selling of such schemes can no longer legimately sell them and will have to return to being used cars salesmen...

[eek]

What's consultation on FUTURE legislation got to do with No To Retro campaign?

There is I believe a fear that the retrospective bit regarding DOTAS schemes and immediate payment of tax HMRC believe is owing will hit some of their members who continued to use such schemes....

[stonehenge]

Montpelier scheme which ran from 2001-2008 was registered with DoTaS in 2004. Anyone who used it 2004-2008 could be affected by the new retrospective "pay up now" rules.

[AtW]

Montpelier scheme which ran from 2001-2008 was registered with DoTaS in 2004. Anyone who used it 2004-2008 could be affected by the new retrospective "pay up now" rules.

Good.

You can thank for that the people who thought it was good strategy to use legal means to delay the inevitable.

It was obvious from start that anybody who puts DOTAS number on their SA would be targeted.

[cojak]

Specifically mentions contractor schemes on page 7.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload..._avoidance.pdf

The No To Retro campaign have drafted a letter if anyone is interested in responding.
Latest News | No To Retrospective Taxation

Wow!

Posting this in General.

Brave man...

[AtW]

Why is it those scheme providers don't have sufficient idemnity insurance to cover any penalties/tax in the event that scheme does not work?

And why users don't demand such insurance to be in place in the first place???

[Ticktock]

Montpelier scheme which ran from 2001-2008 was registered with DoTaS in 2004. Anyone who used it 2004-2008 could be affected by the new retrospective "pay up now" rules.

I don't understand the problem.

Two carbon-copy schemes are run. One is found to be false, and users are ordered to pay up.
Now, HMRC can say "Since these schemes are identical, and we've already proven the way they are run to be false, users of both should pay up now."

What you appear to want is to be able to say, "Oh, but ours has a different name, so of course it's not the same scheme."

[eek]

Why is it those scheme providers don't have sufficient idemnity insurance to cover any penalties/tax in the event that scheme does not work?

And why users don't demand such insurance to be in place in the first place???

Because they are sold to foolish newbie contractors who believe the IR35 scare stories the salesmen tell them.....

As I said before I really don't think the plans go far enough and schemes should have to put whopping big warnings in all literature....