Murray Group decision 5th July

[Dylan]

I thought HMRC won?

You ever heard of the phrase "pyrrhic victory"

[sbar99920]

Wishful thinking

Bit hopeful I know ..but ...

I have Notice of Assessments for 2011/12 and 12/13. Does this ruling place the burden of paying applicable tax on the employer and not the employee? If the umbrella company no longer exists can the burden be legally passed to the employee? What would this mean for the 2019 legislation?

[BrilloPad]

You ever heard of the phrase "pyrrhic victory"

Yes. Why is this a pyrrhic victory?

[DotasScandal]

Yes. Why is this a pyrrhic victory?

Presumably because the liability falls on the employer, not the employee. HMRC is entitled to collection from the employer, but as the employer and the employer's money are gone, there is nothing to collect.
(simplified)

[Dylan]

I'm not a laywer but look forward to hearing from my legal representation in due course.

My very simple interpretation as a layman is that in order to use this ruling against contractors I think HMRC will have to somehow transfer liability from employer to employee. Hopefully this will mean they listen to reason and will accept a sensible settlement.

[BrilloPad]

Presumably because the liability falls on the employer, not the employee. HMRC is entitled to collection from the employer.

Understood. This is excellent news.

as the employer and the employer's money are gone, there is nothing to collect.

According to the bbc article Murray says it will mean a smaller payout for other creditors. However that is a side issue.

[Fred Bloggs]

I'm not a laywer but look forward to hearing from my legal representation in due course.

My very simple interpretation as a layman is that in order to use this ruling against contractors I think HMRC will have to somehow transfer liability from employer to employee. Hopefully this will mean they listen to reason and will accept a sensible settlement.

Slam dunk for the self employed schemes then?

Likewise for the employed schemes, I assume that the learned gentlemen who consider these things will conclude that sprinkling magic pixie dust on your wages by giving them to someone in the IoM who then lends you the same money back again will conclude that if it still quacks and walks like a duck then the pixie dust hasn't worked?

[BrilloPad]

Slam dunk for the self employed schemes then?

Likewise for the employed schemes, I assume that the learned gentlemen who consider these things will conclude that sprinkling magic pixie dust on your wages by giving them to someone in the IoM who then lends you the same money back again will conclude that if it still quacks and walks like a duck then the pixie dust hasn't worked?

The question is where does the liability fall if the magic pixie dust does not work.

[Fred Bloggs]

The question is where does the liability fall if the magic pixie dust does not work.

On the duck.

[BrilloPad]

On the duck.

Does the Duck live in the IoM or in the UK?