• 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!

HMRC fail again...

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

    HMRC fail again...

    another case......





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Contractor UK; 28 June 2020, 20:15.

    #2
    So a little bit of making sure you run your business correctly and some legal support is enough to keep you outside. Who would have thought? Take note all those switching inside ir35 as that acceptance of an inside position could be just the evidence required to win backdated tax.
    Last edited by Contractor UK; 28 June 2020, 20:15.
    Make Mercia Great Again!

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by BlueSharp View Post
      So a little bit of making sure you run your business correctly and some legal support is enough to keep you outside. Who would have thought? Take note all those switching inside ir35 as that acceptance of an inside position could be just the evidence required to win backdated tax.
      And all those newbies whinging about losing money when they get terminated early also take note...
      "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


        #4
        Originally posted by BlueSharp View Post
        So a little bit of making sure you run your business correctly and some legal support is enough to keep you outside. Who would have thought? Take note all those switching inside ir35 as that acceptance of an inside position could be just the evidence required to win backdated tax.
        From these boards, I've not seen much evidence of many people "switching inside IR35", or even thinking of doing so. Have you seen otherwise?

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Paralytic View Post
          From these boards, I've not seen much evidence of many people "switching inside IR35", or even thinking of doing so. Have you seen otherwise?
          Quiet a lot of us considering our options and quiet a number saying they have, or will close their companies for perm or umbrella. Amazed you haven't noticed.

          Comment


            #6
            Two queries ref RALC's now depleted bank account;

            1. Am not sure by Dave Chaplin's presence, if RALC was a member of IPSE, and so should have had legal support paid for?
            2. But even if he did not, can I ask what the rules are if the accuser (HMRC) loses and if they should then pay the defendant's legal costs? I thought the HMRC should cough up, no?

            But, well done to all concerned. Again an illustration of HMRC's duplicity about just what it will and will not stand by in terms of the CEST output. It really is disgusting.

            Am very disappointed by the HMRC right now.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by simes View Post
              Two queries ref RALC's now depleted bank account;

              1. Am not sure by Dave Chaplin's presence, if RALC was a member of IPSE, and so should have had legal support paid for?
              2. But even if he did not, can I ask what the rules are if the accuser (HMRC) loses and if they should then pay the defendant's legal costs? I thought the HMRC should cough up, no?

              But, well done to all concerned. Again an illustration of HMRC's duplicity about just what it will and will not stand by in terms of the CEST output. It really is disgusting.

              Am very disappointed by the HMRC right now.
              On reading the article I took a presumption that he didn't have IPSE membership or any form of tax investigation insurance and was having to pay the legal costs himself. Hence the hit on the company.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by dx4100 View Post
                On reading the article I took a presumption that he didn't have IPSE membership or any form of tax investigation insurance and was having to pay the legal costs himself. Hence the hit on the company.
                Me too. But even so, does not the HMRC pay the costs of the defendant?

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by simes View Post
                  Two queries ref RALC's now depleted bank account;

                  1. Am not sure by Dave Chaplin's presence, if RALC was a member of IPSE, and so should have had legal support paid for?
                  2. But even if he did not, can I ask what the rules are if the accuser (HMRC) loses and if they should then pay the defendant's legal costs? I thought the HMRC should cough up, no?

                  But, well done to all concerned. Again an illustration of HMRC's duplicity about just what it will and will not stand by in terms of the CEST output. It really is disgusting.

                  Am very disappointed by the HMRC right now.
                  I think the accuser only pays the defender's costs if the court orders them to do so

                  IANAL

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by simes View Post
                    Me too. But even so, does not the HMRC pay the costs of the defendant?
                    I think its really rare for costs to be awarded at tribunal...

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X