Latest misinformation

[DotasScandal]

I am surprised that more people weren't put off schemes after we were hit with retro back in 2008.
If anything, they became even more popular over the next few years.

Again, the matter of exposure.
How many contractors heard about the S.58 shenanigans back then?
Probably very, very few.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I remember, in the aftermath, quite a few loan scheme promoters being very quick to dismiss what happened to us. Obviously they didn't want it scaring punters away.

[Fred Bloggs]

If you believe anyone but a tiny, very specific fraction got into this sh*t because they thought they could "behave like billionaires", then clearly you haven't spoken to many.

Testimonials

On the contrary, I already said I realise many victims fell into it because of concerns about IR35. But intelligent, well educated, well paid professionals might have given the "IR35 solution" a little more thought and reflection, perhaps? You know what they say about things that seem too good to be true? It certainly holds in this case, does it not?

[eek]

We are back to my statement earlier...

Until and unless HMRC published something we had nothing to point people at that confirmed our viewpoints.

Most people don't follow CUK or other sites and go for the easiest option with the smoothest salesmen....

As such even if HMRC had done something I think we can all agree that it wouldn't have helped most people because they never would have done enough research to find CUK or a.n.other site where people could point out what would happen.

[webberg]

As has been observed, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I've spoken with many hundreds of contractors. In the majority of instances the answer to the question of "why did you do it?" is a variation on the following.

When I joined client X, everybody was talking about Scheme Y. I contacted Scheme Y and a nice man in a suit turned up, told me everything was legal, they would handle all my invoicing etc, I no longer needed that clunky limited company to avoid IR35 (something Client X was very keen on), they had QC opinions and (unbelievably) has HMRC clearance as evidenced by the DOTAS number.

Did they realise that tax was reduced as result/by product? Of course

Was that a primary motive? Sometimes, usually not.

Did they think tax planning was illegal? Absolutely not.

Did they compare themselves to large multinationals who pay whatever tax they care to? No.

So the argument that a well educated, professional and prudent person was in some way negligent in not questioning their judgement in an area patrolled by promoters who were slick and convincing and practised in not giving the full and complete story, doesn't stand the test of evidence.

Unfortunately the revisionist version of events favoured above is one that HMRC choose to punt to a public audience that has been poisoned by the very professional PR job that has been done.

[DotasScandal]

On the contrary, I already said I realise many victims fell into it because of concerns about IR35. But intelligent, well educated, well paid professionals might have given the "IR35 solution" a little more thought and reflection, perhaps? You know what they say about things that seem too good to be true? It certainly holds in this case, does it not?

First, levels of intelligence, education, pay amongst victims of these scams are far from being as uniform as you seem to think (I invite you to visit the link to testimonials I posted earlier)

Second, shouldn't the fact that tens of thousands of "intelligent, well-educated" individuals thought, at the time, that this would be an acceptable vehicle for their trading and a reasonable arrangement give you pause for thought? That maybe, just maybe, things were not exactly the way HMRC represents them?

Finally, yes I know the expression "too good to be true". I'll give you another one: "hindsight is always 20/20".
It's particularly disingenuous to judge decisions from 10-15 years ago from the perspective of today, pretending the context was the same and all the gained knowledge was available at the time.

[Fred Bloggs]

I don't believe any one here has suggested tax planning is illegal? Certainly not me, I plan my remuneration and tax position as thoroughly as the next MyCo contractor.

[Fred Bloggs]

First, levels of intelligence, education, pay amongst victims of these scams are far from being as uniform as you seem to think (I invite you to visit the link to testimonials I posted earlier)

Second, shouldn't the fact that tens of thousands of "intelligent, well-educated" individuals thought, at the time, that this would be an acceptable vehicle for their trading and a reasonable arrangement give you pause for thought? That maybe, just maybe, things were not exactly the way HMRC represents them?

Finally, yes I know the expression "too good to be true". I'll give you another one: "hindsight is always 20/20".
It's particularly disingenuous to judge decisions from 10-15 years ago from the perspective of today, pretending the context was the same and all the gained knowledge was available at the time.

OK, I don't really disagree with you that much. I did refer to "victims" after all. We'd all be rich with 20:20 hindsight.

[DotasScandal]

Unfortunately the revisionist version of events favoured above is one that HMRC choose to punt to a public audience that has been poisoned by the very professional PR job that has been done.

HMRC have to push the revisionist version, otherwise, how will they cover up the inconvenient truth that they failed to do their job properly for the past 10 years+?

We come from a radical "truth at all costs" tradition, but many of the more mild-natured contractors that were to serve as scapegoats in this operation also know very well that the version of history presented by the Revenue is pure Holywood fantasy. And because of that, are not ready to play along and go gently into the good night.

We'd hazard this is one of the main reasons why HMRC have so many problems "collecting" APN money as of late (evidence of this is aplently if you can read between the lines)

[AtW]

Did they realise that tax was reduced as result/by product? Of course

Was that a primary motive? Sometimes, usually not.

Naturally the motive was to avoid IR35 and that "clunky limited company", which of course got nothing to do with reduction of tax.