Murray Group (Rangers) tax case - decision today?

[regron]

Yeah, kind of feels like more of a stalemate ruling. Also, I am probably reading too much into this but I find it interesting that there is yet to be an official statement from HMRC. I would have thought they would have been out doing their victory lap the minute the judgment went public. They certainly were when the judicial review announcement came out. For now I will treat their lack of communication as positive, it will at least make me feel better....for now

[AtW]

And, if HMRC can't collect off them, well that's their problem.

But surely, ultimately it's the individual who is responsible for his own tax affairs, say if employer failed to take income tax and employee NIC at the source, then does it mean that the person who was employed get off with tax free money? Scheme providers are offshore or shut down, so HMRC can't get much from them.

[Samatra]

But surely, ultimately it's the individual who is responsible for his own tax affairs, say if employer failed to take income tax and employee NIC at the source, then does it mean that the person who was employed get off with tax free money? Scheme providers are offshore or shut down, so HMRC can't get much from them.

"Scheme providers are offshore or shut down, so HMRC can't get much from them"

That why they are coming after us. Treating the income as other rather than from employment.
I am currently PAYE (Perm not EBT scheme) and expect my employer to pay my taxes.

[jbryce]

But surely, ultimately it's the individual who is responsible for his own tax affairs, say if employer failed to take income tax and employee NIC at the source, then does it mean that the person who was employed get off with tax free money? Scheme providers are offshore or shut down, so HMRC can't get much from them.

Err no HMRC would initially have to come after the company. Scheme providers were offsore, but some also had UK registered addresses.
My account just read the judgement and feels that the HMRC may have won the case, but the judgement around employer responsibility does muddy the waters somewhat.

...and on we go....

Join the big group.

[Underbase]

But surely, ultimately it's the individual who is responsible for his own tax affairs, say if employer failed to take income tax and employee NIC at the source, then does it mean that the person who was employed get off with tax free money? Scheme providers are offshore or shut down, so HMRC can't get much from them.

Look at it another way. What if your employer did take tax off you and went bust never handing the cash to HMRC. Would you still expect them to extract it from you?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

But surely, ultimately it's the individual who is responsible for his own tax affairs, say if employer failed to take income tax and employee NIC at the source, NO then does it mean that the person who was employed get off with tax free money? YES

Any company which employs people is legally required to operate PAYE. The deduction of employee taxes and nics is solely the company's responsibility.

[AtW]

Look at it another way. What if your employer did take tax off you and went bust never handing the cash to HMRC. Would you still expect them to extract it from you?

Good question. I would actually expect HMRC to try to extract it one way or another - unless there is already (must be) precedent that covers it, not saying it's right thing here.

In this case however employer did not take off required tax in the first place - money were passed in form of "loans" which were not deemed employment income. Only thing deducted were the fees to scheme provider, but that's between user and provider.

[Dylan]

Good question. I would actually expect HMRC to try to extract it one way or another - unless there is already (must be) precedent that covers it, not saying it's right thing here.

In this case however employer did not take off required tax in the first place - money were passed in form of "loans" which were not deemed employment income. Only thing deducted were the fees to scheme provider, but that's between user and provider.

The loans were from a trust, not from the employer.

The employer settled money in to the trust but if it being considered as PAYE income then the income has effectively been deemed to have been given to the employee prior to the loan existing.

[AtW]

The loans were from a trust, not from the employer. The employer settled money in to the trust but if it being considered as PAYE income then the income has effectively been deemed to have been given to the employee prior to the loan existing.

Indeed, and there were no PAYE deductions from those amounts, so the employee got all money (the fee paid to scheme provider is irrelevant here - it's a matter between them).

So employee is on the hook for PAYE tax, while still owing money to the trust...

[Dylan]

Indeed, and there were no PAYE deductions from those amounts, so the employee got all money (the fee paid to scheme provider is irrelevant here - it's a matter between them).

So employee is on the hook for PAYE tax, while still owing money to the trust...

And yet the court thought otherwise. Lots of debate and analysis to come...