Originally posted by varunksingh
View Post
-
Aren't EBTs now formally banned? The Rangers case is fighting a past battle which matters to those involved in that scheme then not now.merely at clientco for the entertainment -
Yeah EBTs are banned .. agreed. But new schemes do not need to be based on EBT!Originally posted by eek View Post
On a side note, you were quite sure 5 months ago that APN will not affect companies. 10,000 APNs will be issued to companies as well.Comment
-
Why, are you interested?Originally posted by dezze View Post"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
-
Yep, those companies that used such EBT schemes...Originally posted by varunksingh View Post"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
-
-
it doesn't work. I got my accountant to ring them up for a laugh - basically they set up a trust and then make discretionary loans out of it. As they don't know how it's administered they are not capable of keeping on the right side of the law. They had no legal firm backing them up (a waste of money they said). Basically you give some money to someone who takes 10% of it and then hands it back to you.Originally posted by dezze View Post
You could do that with a mate. Your pal could take all your cash, buy a B&O HiFi, give you the money back and then look at you puzzled when you say that HMRC are investigating you for evasion.
It's a con.Comment
-
You have got it completely wrong. Where did you got the info that all companies used EBT?Originally posted by cojak View PostComment
-
Companies that used VAT schemes or offshore companies to avoid Employer NI are probably going to be targeted. Nothing there should worry contractors using limited companies.Originally posted by varunksingh View Postmerely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Most contractor schemes involve arranging for the source of income to be invoiced from a legal entity other than the person doing the work. That legal entity then uses perhaps another legal entity to make a payment (usually a loan) to the contractor.
The legal entities tend to be offshore companies and trusts. Employment Benefit Trusts (EBT) and Remuneration trusts (RT) are pretty similar.
New iterations of these schemes use limited liability partnerships with corporate members. Profits allocated to the corporate member are then loaned to the contractor.
All of the above, Rangers case notwithstanding, are probably incapable of resisting any serious HMRC challenge. Make no mistake that a challenge will be made.
If somebody says that a scheme is not DOTAS'd - be very afraid. The DOTAS rules are very wide, are interpreted in HMRC's favour and will catch all schemes that I've seen.
As to using a scheme but paying the tax upfront and awaiting a victory in Court, do the maths. You earn 100. You pay tax of 40. You pay the operator of the scheme 5. You pay a legal team say 10. You have a net 45. Around 6 to 8 years later you get back 25 plus interest at a massive 0.5% a year. I suggest that the 15 you pay to get back 25 around 6 to 8 years later (ignoring the stress element) is just not worth it.
The position is obvious worse if you lose as you may have to pay a penalty as well.
If you want to "save" tax at the moment, use one of the statutory relief systems such as EIS/VCT etc.Comment
-
Christ no, just wondered what made them so different 'in their view' that they were immune from HMRC's unwanted advances....Originally posted by cojak View PostComment
Comment