Originally posted by AtW
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
2019 tax charge - consultation preparation
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by AtW View PostThere is indeed no crime at the moment to use tax avoidance schemes.
I'd pick Ltd over umbrella because there is a lot more control over when one gets paid - business can and should accumulate some profits to ensure smooth salary payments for employees, that's important for mortgage reasons, also Ltd is much more suitable for Plan B.Comment
-
Originally posted by Dylan View PostUnfortunately I fell for the "they issue the scheme number so they can understand how it works and change the law to prevent it working in the future" line, like a ******* idiotComment
-
Originally posted by SomeDude View PostDifference in take-home amount between scheme user and well-managed LTD is maybe few percent.Comment
-
Originally posted by AtW View PostI reckon Ltd contractors now (with new higher tax on dividends) will be making more money to Govt than if they all became PAYE permies - being a contractor allows to command higher rate, plus many would take less holidays, less sick days etc.
- There is no suggestion that they will necessarily distribute all. Though if not it is only deferment really. May use other deferment vehicles like pension though.
- The marginal take is still lower. Not as much but still meaningfully so. I posted up an example if you are bothered/interested enough to have a look
- The higher rate is at the expense of money going to different places. Thus client is saving on CT over payroll costs which reduce government take in two ways. Business is then paying CT some payroll costs and new NI tax.
It won't be such a big gap, but there is still going to be a gap (though yes less holidays etc may cause an effective increase in productivity which will compensate). I suspect that they feel they have got the gap "near enough for the time being". With plenty of scope to tinker later....Last edited by ASB; 18 May 2016, 11:14.Comment
-
Originally posted by SomeDude View PostWell, of course many independent parties would say "it's all legal, nothing to worry about", as until now nobody has proven that it was in fact illegal... And nobody could have known about retrospective APN laws coming to life years in the future.Comment
-
Originally posted by SomeDude View PostDifference in take-home amount between scheme user and well-managed LTD is maybe few percent.
Source: BBC News - Offshore tax avoiders face £100m tax bill
If the difference wasn't big then nobody would touch those schemes.Comment
-
Originally posted by AtW View Post3.5% tax, plus I reckon 10% fee to scheme maker, so 13.5% vs 40%, nearly 3 times less.
Source: BBC News - Offshore tax avoiders face £100m tax bill
If the difference wasn't big then nobody would touch those schemes.Comment
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View PostThen why did so many scheme users live in a state of semi-perpetual stress for so many years? That was my experience of colleagues whose arrangements I knew about. Or perhaps, in retrospect, it was shame.
99% of "scheme users" we know were living completely stress-free precisely because of the perceived certainty that they believed the "schemes" provided (reinforced by the fact that it was all fully declared - DOTAS registered!!!!)
Of course, a completely wrong perception in retrospect (but in retrospect, everything looks so crystal clear, eh?)
99% of these 99% would have dropped off their "schemes" at once had HMRC produced one of these cutesy "tempeted by tax avoidance?" leafleats that they are sending to everyone and their dog these days.
For HMRC to say that they needed retrospective legislation to displace stubborn contractors from schemes is therefore a major fallacy. The reality is that they needed it to cover-up 10 years of guilty inaction and incompetence. By murdering 65 000 inconvenient witnesses.Last edited by DotasScandal; 18 May 2016, 11:31.Comment
-
Originally posted by DotasScandal View PostWe have a very different experiences, then.
99% of "scheme users" we know were living completely stress-free precisely because of the perceived certainty that they believed the "schemes" provided (reinforced by the fact that it was all fully declared - DOTAS registered!!!!)
Of course, a completely wrong perception in retrospect (but in retrospect, everything looks so crystal clear, eh?)
99% of these 99% would have dropped off their "schemes" at once had HMRC produced one of these cutesy "tempeted by tax avoidance?" leafleats that they are sending to everyone and their dog these days.
For HMRC to say that they needed retrospective legislation to displace stubborn contractors from schemes is therefore a major fallacy. The reality is that they needed it to cover-up 10 years of guilty inaction and incompetence. By murdering 65 000 inconvenient witnesses.
Anyway, I've probably derailed your thread enough now so I'll let you get onto it. But don't be mean to AtW - he's only little.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment