oco and toughglaze

[BrilloPad]

http://www.rossmartin.co.uk/sme-tax-...her-ebt-scheme

The FTT agreed the loans were true loans but despite the trustees’ having discretion there was no doubt that the loans would be made and there was no realistic possibility the money lent would ever need to be repaid.

The amounts, when viewed realistically under a Ramsay approach, were earnings. The PAYE determination and NIC decisions were upheld.

Which means the employers are liable for the tax. Like Rangers.

[eek]

I think we are expecting something retrospective to allow HMRC to transfer the debt to the employees....

[jbryce]

I think we are expecting something retrospective to allow HMRC to transfer the debt to the employees....

Can't be that simple - surely?

[BrilloPad]

Can't be that simple - surely?

It was in the case of DTA. Even though Lamont deliberately did close the loophole in 1987 as it was not parliament's concern.

However HMRC have to be careful as they sometimes make things worse.

[regron]

It was in the case of DTA. Even though Lamont deliberately did close the loophole in 1987 as it was not parliament's concern.

However HMRC have to be careful as they sometimes make things worse.

What, like pushing the Rangers case all the way through to the SC you mean

[luxCon]

Confused about liability

Please can someone clarify ;

As with the Rangers case, it appears that the highest court in the land has put the liability of any Tax/NIC on the employer.

In my naivety I take it that the contractor (employee) is no longer liable for the money HMRC are chasing on the EBTs.

Is this simply too good to be true and I am naive about it all? Or as the court has ruled HMRC can only chase the Employer?

[jbryce]

Please can someone clarify ;

As with the Rangers case, it appears that the highest court in the land has put the liability of any Tax/NIC on the employer.

In my naivety I take it that the contractor (employee) is no longer liable for the money HMRC are chasing on the EBTs.

Is this simply too good to be true and I am naive about it all? Or as the court has ruled HMRC can only chase the Employer?

F*** knows.
HMRC win one case. Hooray.
Then get HMG to change the law to allow HMRC to ignore their previous win and hold a contrary position.

[webberg]

Please can someone clarify ;

As with the Rangers case, it appears that the highest court in the land has put the liability of any Tax/NIC on the employer.

In my naivety I take it that the contractor (employee) is no longer liable for the money HMRC are chasing on the EBTs.

Is this simply too good to be true and I am naive about it all? Or as the court has ruled HMRC can only chase the Employer?

The Court said that in the Rangers case, the liability fell on the employer.

That was because the assessments at the heart of the case were Regulation 80 determinations for unpaid PAYE.

Where there are is a clear employer/employee link and circumstances similar to Rangers, I think HMRC may struggle to show a liability on a different person.

HMRC is therefore making lots of noises about how they can visit an employers PAYE liability on an employee. certainly some rules are changing to make this easier, but even those have hurdles, a key one being, "when are they effective from?".

Will we see retrospection here? Possibly.

[eek]

Will we see retrospection here? They will definitely try to.

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....

[jbryce]

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....

...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.