Murray Group decision 5th July

[Dylan]

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

Depends who is asking

[Fred Bloggs]

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

The duck was given to you in the UK in return for pottering around and doing a few bits and bobs, as you do. But then you sprinkled the pixie dust on it and sent it to the nice man in the IoM who then sent you in return a couple of legs, two breasts, two wings and a carcass back, on loan. Snag is the because the pixie dust didn't work, you still have a duck and ducks are taxed.

[ChimpMaster]

I didn't realise this thread was in General.

[Fred Bloggs]

I didn't realise this thread was in General.

Just search/paste "money" for "duck" eh?

[BrilloPad]

I didn't realise this thread was in General.

I am going to give now since FB is either a politician or a tax advisor. No straight answers to a straight question.

[Fred Bloggs]

I am going to give now since FB is either a politician or a tax advisor. No straight answers to a straight question.

[AtW]

So, it's crystal clear now that those "loans" are in fact emoluments, something that was obvious from start, yet it required many years of expensive litigation.

Employer was meant to deduct them, just because they gone bust does not mean the persons who got the tax free cash get to keep it. It will probably take another 5-7 years of litigation to get to this yet another obvious point. I guess they might argue that employer NICs is not taxpayers responsibility, but everything else (Income tax, Employee NICs) surely is.

[AtW]

You ever heard of the phrase "pyrrhic victory"

There must be plenty of still solvent employers with EBTs...

[webberg]

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.

Well let's hope so.

[administrator]

So, it's crystal clear now that those "loans" are in fact emoluments, something that was obvious from start, yet it required many years of expensive litigation.

Employer was meant to deduct them, just because they gone bust does not mean the persons who got the tax free cash get to keep it. It will probably take another 5-7 years of litigation to get to this yet another obvious point. I guess they might argue that employer NICs is not taxpayers responsibility, but everything else (Income tax, Employee NICs) surely is.

Not necessarily, if it is found that the employer was responsible but the employer is no longer a legal entity then there is no way that HMRC can get the cash from them. That shouldn't mean that the liability is then passed to the employee. That is the pyrrhic victory, they have won but they won't see much cash from the IoM scheme organiser. From Rangers yes, as sounds like the assets have been held while the case was concluded so HMRC will be able to recoup some of the cash. Enough to pay for all of this litigation though?