Loan Charge stories in the FT

[meridian]

Not sure if it’s appropriate (mods, feel free to delete if it is not) but there’s an article in today’s FT humanising the aspect of the loan charges with various real stories.

Readers respond to ‘Living in the shadow of a tax scandal’ | Financial Times

[here4beer]

Not sure if it’s appropriate (mods, feel free to delete if it is not) but there’s an article in today’s FT humanising the aspect of the loan charges with various real stories.

Readers respond to ‘Living in the shadow of a tax scandal’ | Financial Times

Good read, until the comments. It's a shame the public still don't fully understand. Accusing everyone of using underground illegal offshore tax avoidance schemes, the propaganda is working...

I think it made 9% difference to my take home. Purely for ir35 protection of the unknown, to concentrate on the actual job itself. The extra money only ended up in a SIPP (pension) anyway. Hardly champagne and hookers.

[kryten22uk]

The extra money only ended up in a SIPP (pension) anyway. Hardly champagne and hookers.

As it's still in your SIPP, you can still use it on champagne and hookers after retirement. Don't lose hope.

[here4beer]

As it's still in your SIPP, you can still use it on champagne and hookers after retirement. Don't lose hope.

The stock market 'crash' a few months back ended all that. The other half will be thrilled.

[GreenMirror]

HMRC seem to be gradually giving more time to pay and softening stance on bankruptcy.

[dammit chloe]

HMRC seem to be gradually giving more time to pay and softening stance on bankruptcy.

Giving all these highly paid contractors 7 years to pay so long as they are earning 30,000 or less. Artificial figleaf to appear considerate.

[regron]

Loan Charge stories in the FT

HMRC seem to be gradually giving more time to pay and softening stance on bankruptcy.

Ask yourself why that is. Could it be that the amount of pressure that has been put on people to settle, along with the complete mis-understanding of what we all have stashed away has lead to nowhere near the take up in CLSO’s. Remember, CLSO1 was supposed to be a ‘one and only chance’.

They aren’t getting anywhere near enough takers, so have no choice really, it’s the next tactic to try and sweep up more money.

Don’t think for a minute they are doing it out of compassion, or as a favour.

[hudson]

Good read, until the comments. It's a shame the public still don't fully understand. Accusing everyone of using underground illegal offshore tax avoidance schemes, the propaganda is working...

I think it made 9% difference to my take home. Purely for ir35 protection of the unknown, to concentrate on the actual job itself. The extra money only ended up in a SIPP (pension) anyway. Hardly champagne and hookers.

Agreed. I don't think any of us went into all of this out of greed.

I chose my umbrella company (albeit naively) like I choose my car insurance. You don't go with a cheaper insurance premium provider out of greed, it just seemed like the best deal at the time. We were assured by the provider that it was legal (HMRC/QC approved ). If anything, it was mis-selling.

I was initially only intending to be on contract for a couple of months. Had I known I would be there for a number of years I would have definitely gone Limited. I'm sure others made the same decision down to convenience, not because of greed.

Now, years later, the victims of this are labelled as tax cheats by the general public. We were scammed, and then we were slandered as cheats. Whereas the truth is that none of this was to supplement a lavish lifestyle. The increment in the grand scheme of things was nominal, compared to going down the Limited route.

[here4beer]

Agreed. I don't think any of us went into all of this out of greed.

I chose my umbrella company (albeit naively) like I choose my car insurance. You don't go with a cheaper insurance premium provider out of greed, it just seemed like the best deal at the time. We were assured by the provider that it was legal (HMRC/QC approved ). If anything, it was mis-selling.

I was initially only intending to be on contract for a couple of months. Had I known I would be there for a number of years I would have definitely gone Limited. I'm sure others made the same decision down to convenience, not because of greed.

Now, years later, the victims of this are labelled as tax cheats by the general public. We were scammed, and then we were slandered as cheats. Whereas the truth is that none of this was to supplement a lavish lifestyle. The increment in the grand scheme of things was nominal, compared to going down the Limited route.

You're lucky. If it helps, I went down the limited company route. I now owe personal tax on the loan - which i knew about when settling. However I've since learnt I also need to pay 'readjusted' company corporation tax, which is about the same amount again.

I also fell for the marketing BS. HMRC Approved, QC opinion, full £2mill of insurance, all in the UK, etc etc.

The promoter is still trading and active today. But HMRC seem only interested in me. Work that one out.

[EBTContractor]

When I signed up working for the banks in the Square Mile, I had to use one of these mobs that did loans. On the trading floor everyone including perm staff were paid in loans.