Using an Umbrella Company which pays 80%, 85% or 90%?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

No matter what the company tells you, it's not an umbrella. You can't retain more than 60% through a legitimate umbrella.

You are using a tax avoidance scheme.

Brace yourself for a shed load of grief from HMRC over the coming years.

If you have any sense, get out now.

[LondonManc]

No matter what the company tells you, it's not an umbrella. You can't retain more than 60% through a legitimate umbrella.

You are using a tax avoidance scheme.

Brace yourself for a shed load of grief from HMRC over the coming years.

If you have any sense, get out now.

Well said. Quite why this isn't mandatory advice given to people when they start contracting, I don't... oh, wait, I do know.

[QCApproved]

Please use the limited company method for the avoidance of tax where the legislation directed against it is unenforceable.
You may even discover that actually the avoidance becomes secondary to the various esoteric pleasures of running a limited company such as record keeping,form filling and the finer points of expenses claims

[cojak]

The latest trick is not to call themselves umbrella companies at all - they just set themselves up as straight accountants and are very vague as to how much you'll earn with one.

I'm looking at a website of one this very minute (based in the Isle of Man, but they don't make that visible AT ALL, they have a UK address).

So it's just the numpties who are still shouting about 90% payback!!!

The clever ones are helping you to set up your limited company and hiding behind vague promises of 15 - 30 - 50% tax savings (compared to other renumeration options) and 'Sustainable Renumeration Strategies'.

I'm afraid it's all going to sound very plausible right up to the moment the brown HMRC letter thuds onto the door mat.

[Fred Bloggs]

What Cojak says, with bells on. The industry simply refuses to go away and die. Probably that is an indication of how lucrative it can be for providers. Even now.

[northernladuk]

90%?? Take my money!!!

[QCApproved]

The supply side measure is outlined in the measures in the consultation against marketers and promoters.
This penny appears to have dropped at the HMRC
The missing element is it being retrospective with a will to pursue money and assets abroad.
It would make it to risky for the agents and officers of these scheme companies and promoters and the schemes would dry up.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

One way to kill these schemes off would be to make agencies, supplying workers to end-clients, liable for any non-compliance. Agencies would then only deal with vanilla umbrellas or the worker's own Ltd Co.

Some of the bigger agencies already do this, and have preferred umbrellas.

The fact that the schemes still appear to be viable means there must be quite a lot of agencies out there who don't ask too many questions about how people are getting paid.

[SueEllen]

One way to kill these schemes off would be to make agencies, supplying workers to end-clients, liable for any non-compliance. Agencies would then only deal with vanilla umbrellas or the worker's own Ltd Co.

I think you mean make agency, etc. directors personally liable for helping others to commit tax evasion.

Even if a person resigns as an agency director if the wrong-doings occur under their watch they need to be taken to task.

[LondonManc]

One way to kill these schemes off would be to make agencies, supplying workers to end-clients, liable for any non-compliance. Agencies would then only deal with vanilla umbrellas or the worker's own Ltd Co.

Some of the bigger agencies already do this, and have preferred umbrellas.

The fact that the schemes still appear to be viable means there must be quite a lot of agencies out there who don't ask too many questions about how people are getting paid.

There should be a white list of genuine umbrellas rather than a preferred list; it should not be like a PSL and a contractor should be free to use whichever genuine umbrella company they want.