TTP - time to pay Loan Charge and Settlement

[Fred Bloggs]

Impressive. Can anyone beat that?

Maybe not, might indicate an enormous tax bill that nobody would regard as impressive.

[DealorNoDeal]

Maybe not, might indicate an enormous tax bill that nobody would regard as impressive.

True but it wasn't so long ago that HMRC were only accepting max 2 years TTP.

[Delendog]

True but it wasn't so long ago that HMRC were only accepting max 2 years TTP.

Tax £77K FI added £22K -£99K total

[Fred Bloggs]

True but it wasn't so long ago that HMRC were only accepting max 2 years TTP.

Which would be completely unrealistic if the tax bill was more than a hundred grand or so. Anyone persistent in using schemes for a number of years on a day rate of more 500 quid could quite likely fit that bill. I really don't have much idea, but a tax debt of more than a 100 grand is perhaps not unheard of?

[Ian Richardson GT Leeds]

PYFT

Which would be completely unrealistic if the tax bill was more than a hundred grand or so. Anyone persistent in using schemes for a number of years on a day rate of more 500 quid could quite likely fit that bill. I really don't have much idea, but a tax debt of more than a 100 grand is perhaps not unheard of?

My favourite real life example is someone who has been a "contractor" at the same multinational for more than 5 years now

During the two years that he was employed by one "umbrella", he received loans > £350k …..

[Fred Bloggs]

My favourite real life example is someone who has been a "contractor" at the same multinational for more than 5 years now

During the two years that he was employed by one "umbrella", he received loans > £350k …..

Oh dear...........

[eek]

My favourite real life example is someone who has been a "contractor" at the same multinational for more than 5 years now

During the two years that he was employed by one "umbrella", he received loans > £350k …..

- but at least he qualifies under my rule that using a scheme is a rich person's game.

[DavidD]

1) Yes
2) A lot of back and forth - I did calculations myself and had to correct HMRC's calculations many times.
3) Did it myself.
4) yes
5) no
6) It's about 15 years (the tax bill is ~80k then + ~25k of Interest (forward and backwards)

Once this started to unravel (after the first APNs) I swore to myself that I would not pay another penny to any of the people in this 'industry' - they all asked : Pinotage, the scheme providers, defence funds, FS Capital etc... and they all got nothing and will never get anything.

For me the bottom line is this - the schemes to avoid tax failed, I've dealt with HMRC to pay back the tax + interest (Once HMRC realise your serious about settling they are much easier to deal with imho). HMRC is the top dog and will be paid back - all the other scavengers can FO.

[lowpaidworker]

My favourite real life example is someone who has been a "contractor" at the same multinational for more than 5 years now

During the two years that he was employed by one "umbrella", he received loans > £350k …..

And he may have declared them on his SATR, been told they are an approved scheme and heard nothing from HMRC for a good many years. The said peson probably can't sleep is now having anxiety attacks and suffering depression.

All under the watch of HMRC and Tax Professionals. If the law was clear in 2010 how comes these schemes are still beiing sold and certain elements of the tax profession are still peddling them.

Am not sure I find the boastful almost jovial comment that funny personally

[Fred Bloggs]

And he may have declared them on his SATR, been told they are an approved scheme and heard nothing from HMRC for a good many years. The said peson probably can't sleep is now having anxiety attacks and suffering depression.

All under the watch of HMRC and Tax Professionals. If the law was clear in 2010 how comes these schemes are still beiing sold and certain elements of the tax profession are still peddling them.

Am not sure I find the boastful almost jovial comment that funny personally

It's very much not funny. I don't think it was intended to be.