Originally posted by eek
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
IQ Consultants, Felicitas Solutions, ECS Trustees - loan repayment demands
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Topic is closed
-
-
Originally posted by WoffleCopter View PostIn contract law the burden of proof is lower, but it's still theirs to prove you received/agreed to a contract. An unsigned contract which would essentially mean your were agreeing to work for free or even at your own financial determent in response to correspondence stating your would be saving tax? Really?
I'm not sure whether it's in this thread or another thread but a while ago I discussed the concept of Schrodinger's money where the money you received from a scheme became 2 different things to different people at the same time you received it. To HMRC the 85% as you received it was income on which tax is due but to the scheme provider it was a loan (which might need ) to be repaid. The problem for any scheme user is that because tax law and contract law are entirely separate both statements could be true at the same time.Last edited by eek; 25 June 2020, 08:46.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Originally posted by eek View PostYou received money - therefore there was a contract. Whether the contract is the written but unsigned contract or something else is up to the court to decide but once you start talking about tax (which would be irrelevant in the court you are arguing this case in) I suspect the judge would start to take a very close interest in things (and not in a good way). And the truth is that there is a contract, even you talked above about timesheets, a contract of services and promotional materials.
I'm not sure whether it's in this thread or another thread but a while ago I discussed the concept of Schrodinger's money where the money you received from a scheme became 2 different things to different people at the same time you received it. To HMRC the 85% as you received it was income on which tax is due but to the scheme provider it was a loan (which might need ) to be repaid. The problem for any scheme user is that because tax law and contract law are entirely separate both statements could be true at the same time.Comment
-
Originally posted by eek View PostI don't work for anyone as Cojak and the other mods will confirm.. I post here as I feel there is a need to provide a rational logical approach when people are being emotional (so irrational) as the second half of your paragraph confirms. So when I returned after a few months away and saw people arguing that no signature meant no contract I felt it right to point out that courts won't see things that way.
As for the lack of a written contract - that was the entire point of those schemes, it's no different from the end of the Wizard of Oz where Toto pulls back the curtain and Dorothy discovers that the Wizard (scheme) is actually an old man. If you had seen the contract the cold light of day might have revealed how flaky the approach they were using was and might have given you time to see the clause that said the money you were receiving wasn't 85% of the contract value but a "loan" of 85% of the contract value.Comment
-
Originally posted by WoffleCopter View PostIn the absence of any contradicting information, the court usually takes the view of a reasonable person. A reasonable person would assume that you worked under the terms of the promotional literature in order to avoid tax. You have now settled said tax with HMRC. It would be highly illogical to save tax only to end up with a much greater repayable debt. Therefore the burden of proof is theirs to provide evidence that you did.Last edited by eek; 25 June 2020, 09:22.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Originally posted by Wtaf View PostIt was a humorous twist from a previous post. You must be great fun at parties. I will not lose any sleep over a scam like this.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Originally posted by eek View PostIt wouldn't be highly illogical as that was how Employment Benefit trusts worked see Understanding Employment Benefit Trusts (EBT) and the first post of https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ght-wrong.html - as I suspect their lawyers would quickly demonstrate - the ideal was that the trust would not enforce the loan but, of cause, they couldn't put that in writing.
Also, the court has the right to look through artificial contractual arrangements setup purely to avoid tax. Who knows, it could even decide that the whole arrangement be unravelled, and the gross amount be returned to the original client for legitimate redistribution, I'm sure the scheme promoters wouldn't want that!Comment
-
Originally posted by WoffleCopter View PostThe difference being that the money originated from your toil to end up in the trust. I don't think the judge would simply ignore this.
Also, the court has the right to look through artificial contractual arrangements setup purely to avoid tax. Who knows, it could even decide that the whole arrangement be unravelled, and the gross amount be returned to the original client for legitimate redistribution, I'm sure the scheme promoters wouldn't want that!merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
How many months have these clowns been threatening to take people to court?
Have they done anything, at all?
Thought not.
Scoots still says that Apr 2020 didn't mark the start of a new stock bull market.Comment
-
Originally posted by DealorNoDeal View PostHow many months have these clowns been threatening to take people to court?
Have they done anything, at all?
Thought not.
Now again I'm not saying that things are heading to court but were I said clown starting the next stage the test cases I picked wouldn't be a poster on this site nor one using a stock letter from an advisor firm.Last edited by eek; 25 June 2020, 10:04.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
Topic is closed
Partners
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment