Should Tax liability fall to Umbrella Company if Umbrella company still exitst??

[MikeJack]

All,

I was engaged in a scheme using loan umbrella company in year 2017-18 and was paid through a third party trust since it was latest scheme; my Umbrella company still dare to operate.

Referring to following is new article which has been published on HMRC website HMRC has given more information about Tax Avoidance Loan Schemes and loan charge.

Tax avoidance loan schemes and the loan charge - GOV.UK

In that they have mentioned the following which could be quite useful statement in my case and for many other people and may be used to try to see if we can pass our liability to Umbrella company. I have read this at many other places as well. here is the extract from article:

"Who needs to pay
The disguised remuneration rules apply to everybody who entered into this type of tax avoidance arrangement, regardless of their income, employment status, or the job they do.

If an employer set up a scheme then the tax liabilities will fall to them and not the employee. HMRC will only seek payment from the employee if it cannot be collected from the employer, for example where the employer no longer exists or is off-shore. In these circumstances HMRC would collect the liabilities owed from the employee, who benefited from the scheme.

"

So according to this if employer (Umbrella Company) still exist then the liability should fall on the employer(umbrella company) not on Employee( to Me).

The umbrella company is still in operation so I think I still have chance to push my liability to them.

So I just wanted to know what are my options in doing that. Even if there is 5% chance to differ or save some tax it will help me a lot.

All I am doing is following the guidelines and what HMRC has suggested.

Please suggest?

[WTFH]

This:

I was engaged in a scheme using loan umbrella company in year 2017-18 and was paid through a third party trust

Means that this doesn’t apply to you:

If an employer set up a scheme then the tax liabilities will fall to them and not the employee.

Your scheme was through a third party, not the umbrella.
If it was the umbrella itself who paid you with a loan, then they would be liable. By putting your loan through a third party, then you are the one who is liable.

Sorry.

[Fred Bloggs]

Your scheme was through a third party, not the umbrella.
If it was the umbrella itself who paid you with a loan, then they would be liable. By putting your loan through a third party, then you are the one who is liable.

Sorry.

Darn clever these scheme salesmen, eh?

[dangermaus]

This:


Means that this doesn’t apply to you:


Your scheme was through a third party, not the umbrella.
If it was the umbrella itself who paid you with a loan, then they would be liable. By putting your loan through a third party, then you are the one who is liable.

Sorry.

Probably explains why Principal Contractors shut themselves down back at the end of 2016. They paid loans directly to clients rather than through a trust. They must have seen this coming and knew they could get out of having any liability.

Not sure what effect that has, if any, on anybody who used them.