oco and toughglaze

[eek]

...but perhaps they may see the incongruity in allowing large ClientCo and agencies to escape their tax liability (as defined in law and supported in the Rangers Supreme Court position) and requiring retrospective legislation to go after (arguably) foolish contractors?

At some point, it becomes difficult for ClientCo-s to argue they knew nothing about this. A quick search today shows a link between a large supplier of contractors to a major bank and one of the scheme providers.

While I see and agree with the point of view - companies are often transitory especially when presented with large unexpected bills while individuals can't so easily escape...

[jbryce]

While I see and agree with the point of view - companies are often transitory especially when presented with large unexpected bills while individuals can't so easily escape...

...too true....

[BrilloPad]

ftfy - I also suspect it would be a hard thing to fight against - few MPs are going to argue in support of tax avoiders avoiding tax.... After that it will depend on what the court decides but the BN66 crowd can tell you how that will work out....

Indeed. HMRC lied to parliament. It can be proven. Lawyers advised BN66 crowd not to litigate as no judge would find against HMRC!

BN66ers now have to pay up (or arrange time to pay) or go bankrupt.

So loan scheme users appear to be in the clear for now. However that will change.

[ChimpMaster]

Indeed. HMRC lied to parliament. It can be proven. Lawyers advised BN66 crowd not to litigate as no judge would find against HMRC!

BN66ers now have to pay up (or arrange time to pay) or go bankrupt.

So loan scheme users appear to be in the clear for now. However that will change.

Until 2019 you mean?

[BrilloPad]

Until 2019 you mean?

At the moment it looks like the "employers" would take the hit. I am sure there will be an attempt to change that.

HMRC are refusing to settle loan scheme cases at the moment - even where they previously offered settlement.

[EBTContractor]

HMRC are refusing to settle loan scheme cases at the moment - even where they previously offered settlement.

Does anyone know why they don't want to settle?

[regron]

Does anyone know why they don't want to settle?

IMO

1. They are currently moving offices around the country.
2. The Rangers decision has meant their legal team need to re-group.

[BrilloPad]

Does anyone know why they don't want to settle?

No. And even if they gave a reason I doubt anyone would believe it.

They could having a cunning plan. Or totally incompetent.

[difficulttimes]

You can still settle pre-2011 schemes. For post DR schemes this has put on hold, I would say because settling involves paying tax and NI on money the contractor never received and most people don't have access to the 'fees' that were attached to these schemes. There is a webinar being held on Friday to discuss this so I would encourage people to join that or at least register so you are kept informed of the next steps.

[jbryce]

IMO

1. They are currently moving offices around the country.
2. The Rangers decision has meant their legal team need to re-group.

The Rangers decision which they pursued to the SC and considered a win.
That's the galling thing about this, they get clarity on the situation at the SC and, because they don't like its applicability in other areas, they are seeking to nullify the impact of a decision they sought.

??????