oco and toughglaze
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Posts 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1

    TripleIronDad

    BrilloPad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Divorce Courts
    Posts
    97,926
    Thanks (Given)
    22961
    Thanks (Received)
    6000
    Likes (Given)
    22961
    Likes (Received)
    10184

    Default oco and toughglaze

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

    The FTT agreed the loans were true loans but despite the trusteesí 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.
    I keep pushing forwards but they keep pushing me backwards. So I have new rules. 1. Don't feed the trolls you know they have no souls. 2. Don't respond to them they'll only post back back again. 3. Don't be their friend they'll only knife you in the back. I have new rules I count them.

  2. #2
    eek
    eek is offline

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    22,617
    Thanks (Given)
    261
    Thanks (Received)
    1252
    Likes (Given)
    1067
    Likes (Received)
    3680

    Default

    I think we are expecting something retrospective to allow HMRC to transfer the debt to the employees....
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  3. #3

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    469
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    33
    Likes (Given)
    6
    Likes (Received)
    88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    I think we are expecting something retrospective to allow HMRC to transfer the debt to the employees....
    Can't be that simple - surely?

  4. #4

    TripleIronDad

    BrilloPad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Divorce Courts
    Posts
    97,926
    Thanks (Given)
    22961
    Thanks (Received)
    6000
    Likes (Given)
    22961
    Likes (Received)
    10184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jbryce View Post
    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.
    I keep pushing forwards but they keep pushing me backwards. So I have new rules. 1. Don't feed the trolls you know they have no souls. 2. Don't respond to them they'll only post back back again. 3. Don't be their friend they'll only knife you in the back. I have new rules I count them.

  5. #5

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    284
    Thanks (Given)
    29
    Thanks (Received)
    26
    Likes (Given)
    127
    Likes (Received)
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrilloPad View Post
    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

  6. #6

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    35
    Thanks (Given)
    3
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    4

    Default 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?

  7. #7

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    469
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    33
    Likes (Given)
    6
    Likes (Received)
    88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luxCon View Post
    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.

  8. #8

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    WTT Consulting Ltd - London and online
    Posts
    1,656
    Thanks (Given)
    25
    Thanks (Received)
    298
    Likes (Given)
    70
    Likes (Received)
    540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luxCon View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    eek
    eek is offline

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    22,617
    Thanks (Given)
    261
    Thanks (Received)
    1252
    Likes (Given)
    1067
    Likes (Received)
    3680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webberg View Post

    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....
    Last edited by eek; 18th September 2017 at 15:59.
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  10. #10

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    469
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    33
    Likes (Given)
    6
    Likes (Received)
    88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.