Latest misinformation

[eek]

I think that's valid. The schemes were sold to reduce paperwork and escape IR35..... Remember some schemes still pretend to be umbrella companies (one advertised themselves like that on jobserve this morning).

[DotasScandal]

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

It got to do with gaining (perceived) certainty as opposed to being subjected to uncertainity with regard to IR35 status.
The explosion of the "scheme" industry is a direct consequence of IR35 and another unintended consequence of short-sighted HMRC policies.
Case in point: the many contractors that were "transitioned" into "schemes" by the very accountants that handled their Ltd Co. We don't think these guys saw a spectaular increase in their take-home pay.

[AtW]

It got to do with gaining (perceived) certainty as opposed to being subjected to uncertainity with regard to IR35 status.

And IR35 status is about what... tax?

Anybody who REALLY wanted IR35 certainty should have just paid up at the time, then things would be pretty certain for sure...

So the whole thing was strictly about tax avoidance, BIG time even compared to pre-IR35 days - there can't be any other primary motivation for those who took part in it.

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.

So 10-15 years ago dodging your tax responsibilities was fine? Or was it like asbestos, not known at the time to be toxic?

I think that's valid. The schemes were sold to reduce paperwork and escape IR35..... Remember some schemes still pretend to be umbrella companies (one advertised themselves like that on jobserve this morning).

You put them in wrong order - escape IR35 and reduce paperwork: it's important to assign correct weight to those benefits, the first one is probably 99.9% and second one is 0.01%, hell - I'd gladly do TWICE as much paperwork if my tax rate (legally and morally as per intention of Parliament) goes down by say 10%.

[webberg]

There are no morals to tax.

Tax is a political invention imposed by law.

To assign a human virtue to it, is a complete mistake.

How tax revenues are used/collected/imposed is an ethical question but again not a moral one.

Your morals may drive your ethics but again, these are personal virtues.

There is no equity and no morality in a tax code.

[AtW]

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

Was that a primary motive? Sometimes, usually not.

Would you kindly explain what was the primary motive then, since according to you the tax reduction was usually NOT the motive.

Thank you.

[Fred Bloggs]

Would you kindly explain what was the primary motive then, since according to you the tax reduction was usually NOT the motive.

Thank you.

I tend to agree with you here. Working within IR35 has always been (and remains) the lowest risk option. Anything else has risk attached and it usually involves less tax.

[DotasScandal]

Would you kindly explain what was the primary motive then, since according to you the tax reduction was usually NOT the motive.
Thank you.

This has already been explained to you, but you have already made your own mind about it, so what's the point?

[DotasScandal]

Working within IR35 has always been (and remains) the lowest risk option

If you deem yourself a "disguised employee", this might be acceptable. But if your work is nothing like that of a "permie"?
Agree on the risk element, but as I wrote earlier, the risk assessment done by contractors caught in this mess turned out to be completely wrong, in no small part due to the tales told by the promoters, and in HUGE part due to the ambiguous attitude of HMRC, which sent all the wrong messages.
Many thought they very accepting an infinitesimal amount of risk.
For most (non-CUK) contractors, the risk they accept is the risk of being out of contract. They don't want any "HMRC risk", or very very little.

[AtW]

This has already been explained to you

Not by webberg...

[AtW]

I tend to agree with you here. Working within IR35 has always been (and remains) the lowest risk option. Anything else has risk attached and it usually involves less tax.

Indeed, however I think we can all agree that the motivation for doing things outside of IR35 was NOT done to enjoy the thrills of higher risk, but rather pay less tax - this isn't bungee jumping we talking about here.

It's really amusing to see very clever, super knowledgeable webberg to shy away from saying the obvious truth - the primary motivation was and could have only been to pay a lot less tax, ie: avoid paying tax big time.

I am all ears to hear about some other motivation that "usually not" tax - that's over 50% with some other reason and I'd love to know because I can't see one.