• 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.

Letter from HMRC regarding possible involvement in Tax avoidance

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by eek View Post

    I know that the OPs daily rate would allow me to work out in what way the payslip is dodgy but at the moment all I can say is something is clearly wrong but I can't work out what is going on.
    So the full rate with employers NI is 60 per hour. I work 40 hour weeks.

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by jimmy899 View Post

      So the full rate with employers NI is 60 per hour. I work 40 hour weeks.
      In which case those figures are correct (just badly explained) and we are left with

      Why does HMRC regard this company as dodgy? I think you need to get on the phone to HMRC and ask them because the figures add up and those figures match what is being reported to HMRC and hence appearing on your personal portal. And that is the check WTT and others are recommending to ensure everything is above board.

      The only thing I'm left wondering about is

      1) is the umbrella paying the tax that is expected to be paid - because except for that everything looks fine.
      2) is / was this company previously being used for the PAYE proportion of a scheme and you are one of the none scheme members used to make it look legitimate.

      I'm starting to suspect that 2 may be the answer here.

      Either way my recommendation would be to ask your agency what other umbrellas could you use instead as HMRC have raised concerns about Turnkey and you would prefer to be safe rather than sorry.
      Last edited by eek; 16 July 2021, 12:41.
      merely at clientco for the entertainment

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by eek View Post

        The point was they have no website - so no marketing site and not even a portal for admin purposes.

        That doesn't make much sense in this day and age unless something is dodgy or in stealth mode.
        Exactly.
        Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
        Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by eek View Post

          In which case those figures are correct (just badly explained) and we are left with

          Why does HMRC regard this company as dodgy? I think you need to get on the phone to HMRC and ask them because the figures add up and those figures match what is being reported to HMRC and hence appearing on your personal portal. And that is the check WTT and others are recommending to ensure everything is above board.

          The only thing I'm left wondering about is

          1) is the umbrella paying the tax that is expected to be paid - because except for that everything looks fine.
          2) is / was this company previously being used for the PAYE proportion of a scheme and you are one of the none scheme members used to make it look legitimate.

          I'm starting to suspect that 2 may be the answer here.

          Either way my recommendation would be to ask your agency what other umbrellas could you use instead as HMRC have raised concerns about Turnkey and you would prefer to be safe rather than sorry.
          It looks absolutely like option 2. The OP was offered a "solution" but wisely rejected it. At this point I would advise the OP to immediately change brollies to one with no possible connection to a possible scheme provider. If only to draw a line under this. OP seems to be pretty sensible. But it seems very careful due diligence might have rung alarm bells about subject brolly.
          Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
          Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by jimmy899 View Post

            I have gotten the HMRC letter
            Be interesting to know what that letter says verbatim?

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post

              It looks absolutely like option 2. The OP was offered a "solution" but wisely rejected it. At this point I would advise the OP to immediately change brollies to one with no possible connection to a possible scheme provider. If only to draw a line under this. OP seems to be pretty sensible. But it seems very careful due diligence might have rung alarm bells about subject brolly.
              This looks the likely thing to me - HMRC are (assuming it's not a phishing exercise) sending out letters to all Turnkey clients, presumably based on getting wind of the enhanced scheme.

              However, the number in the letter is linked to scams - https://who-called.co.uk/Number/03002009423 - unless they have simply spoofed it.

              Potential option is for the OP to ring the general HMRC number - 0300 200 3300 - and say that they've received a letter and are concerned that it's a scam having searched the number listed. Then, they can take it from there. It's either phishing or option 2 above I reckon.
              The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist

              Comment


                #37
                Dear all, thank you for all the advice and input. I have rung the general HMRC number and they took down all information on the letter. They did not say if it was legit or not, but they said someone would ring back by the end of the month when they do checks.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Thanks Jimmy. Please keep us updated on this, it would be good to know which way this turns out.
                  "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
                  - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

                  Comment


                    #39
                    I will keep you updated when I hear more.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post

                      It looks absolutely like option 2. The OP was offered a "solution" but wisely rejected it. At this point I would advise the OP to immediately change brollies to one with no possible connection to a possible scheme provider. If only to draw a line under this. OP seems to be pretty sensible. But it seems very careful due diligence might have rung alarm bells about subject brolly.
                      I'm not so sure - the application to strike off the second company was made at the end of April (and refused in June) while the OP was looking at this back in March.

                      I suspect back in March anywhere that would raise alarm bells.
                      merely at clientco for the entertainment

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X