Murray Group decision 5th July

[BrilloPad]

So, for the sake of my sanity,...

I worked for ClientCo who, via a tortuous route, saw X cash deposited in my account.
Who is liable for the tax?
Me as the Employee?
ClientCo as the Employer?
The loan company? (who didn't even ask me to sign loan documents until after payments were made)

Or - are we all liable?

It could be employer or loan company. However it depends on the scheme.

A bigger concern is the loan company asking for their money back.

MP already asked for 10% back.

[centurian]

Sure.

1. HMRC may not be get income tax from the borrower if the employer should have operated PAYE. But I don't do that for a living.
2. The decision has no practical impact for the current disguised remuneration rules or for the expected April 2019 rules.

Thanks - so now the dust is settling, it's looking like the landscape (for contractors) is much the same as it was before the judgement. Not much better, not much worse.

[centurian]

It could be employer or loan company. However it depends on the scheme.

A bigger concern is the loan company asking for their money back.

MP already asked for 10% back.

Is that really a bigger concern. I realise it may be concerning to many people, but in a practical sense, should people be that worried.

Won't the Limitation Act mean that the debt is unenforceable - which is kind of HMRC's point about these being "loans".

[eek]

Is that really a bigger concern. I realise it may be concerning to many people, but in a practical sense, should people be that worried.

Won't the Limitation Act mean that the debt is unenforceable - which is kind of HMRC's point about these being "loans".

I can't find the link but me and BP discussed this a short while ago and the limitation act kicks in surprisingly late to the extent that its probably not started in many cases...

[ASB]

I can't find the link but me and BP discussed this a short while ago and the limitation act kicks in surprisingly late to the extent that its probably not started in many cases...

I think - but am not certain - that limitation clock only starts after an attempt is made to get payment. I.e. the event which triggers the debt.

This is assuming there is no date for repayment and there is an "on demand" provision.

[BrilloPad]

Is that really a bigger concern. I realise it may be concerning to many people, but in a practical sense, should people be that worried.

Won't the Limitation Act mean that the debt is unenforceable - which is kind of HMRC's point about these being "loans".

I suppose you can fight all the way to the Supreme court and get the loan declared a sham.

[jbryce]

I suppose you can fight all the way to the Supreme court and get the loan declared a sham.

HMRC wants it to be a sham!
No wait, they want the loan to be real!
Ah, no probs - it can be a sham and real at the same time.

[BrilloPad]

HMRC wants it to be a sham!
No wait, they want the loan to be real!
Ah, no probs - it can be a sham and real at the same time.

HMRC can instruct their puppet MPs to make it so. The courts already confirmed HMRC can make any law they want to.

[centurian]

I can't find the link but me and BP discussed this a short while ago and the limitation act kicks in surprisingly late to the extent that its probably not started in many cases...

Yeah, I see the point...

[Fred Bloggs]

HMRC wants it to be a sham!
No wait, they want the loan to be real!
Ah, no probs - it can be a sham and real at the same time.

But this is nothing new is it? Intermediaries legislation charges you corporation tax and VAT like a business. And NICs as an employer/employee too. I'm afraid the guys at HMRC and HMG get to make up whatever rules they like. Nothing new in that at all.