If deemed inside IR35 - will that decision also apply to previous time at client?

[northernladuk]

The point I was making is that you can't trust HMRC or politicians not to go after an easy tax grab if that is going to 'soak the rich/tax avoider/tax planner'.

And don't trust the mods to put a thread in the right area of the forum

[BlueSharp]

Those with multiple years of loan charges accrued are tax dodgers, albeit in my humble opinion. I suggest that most contractors agree with this statement - there's a good reason this forum has decried such schemes for years and years.

Those with a Limited Company are simply following the acceptable rules to receive consultancy income in a manner that allows them to work in various different areas. I can certainly see it as an issue in the past, because people would income split with a wife and pay very little tax, allowing it to accrue in the business, followed by regular MVLs when they wanted a break from a contract. I know of senior directors on contractors who would regularly MVL - hardly the sign of a professional, but again they would simply state "within the rules, isn't it?"

My hope is that the true outside IR35 roles remain, but I suspect this is unlikely to be the case for most roles given the extra legwork required by the company and the ease at which the public can be consulted and the 'tax dodger' (thanks, loan charge contractors) phrase applied to any contract who isn't on PAYE.

Mental health and suicide are a complex area but it is difficult to claim you don't expect a large bill from a loan charge when you've done all you can to avoid tax in as aggressive a manner as possible. Many people knowingly went into these schemes knowing that they were dodgy. If you know you're being misquoted owed tax by HMRC then negotiate or see them in court - such rationale can result in lowered tax bills and fairness. Expecting such tax request to disappear entirely is unfair and if marriages break up then I suggest there wasn't much of a marriage commitment there in the first place. Lived beyond your means? Tried to milk every penny possible? Yes, you deserve to pay the tax back over a period of many years.

The sympathy I have is for certain lesser paid professions who were told how to set up their affairs by an agent or sham 'tax advisor' when applying for basic care job, low paid nursing roles and the like; such agencies seem to me to be off the hook for this when HMRC should be taking them and their owners to court and humiliating them to the extent required. Highly paid contractors who knowingly went in to these schemes? Little sympathy.

As were the Loan Charge Scheme's at the time. I agree with the sentiment that these schemes were aggressive tax avoidance and Ltd is more efficient tax planning; but the line has been deliberately blued by politicians toeing the HMRC line that "Workers doing the same role as an Employee should be taxed the same". Joe Blogs wont care.

The point I was making is that you can't trust HMRC or politicians not to go after an easy tax grab if that is going to 'soak the rich/tax avoider/tax planner'.

[rogerfederer]

HMRC also claimed there would be no martial-brakedown due to the loan charge. There are now 7 suicides and countless marital breakdowns. I would not trust them especially when the government can paint contractors as tax-dodgers to joe public.

Those with multiple years of loan charges accrued are tax dodgers, albeit in my humble opinion. I suggest that most contractors agree with this statement - there's a good reason this forum has decried such schemes for years and years.

Those with a Limited Company are simply following the acceptable rules to receive consultancy income in a manner that allows them to work in various different areas. I can certainly see it as an issue in the past, because people would income split with a wife and pay very little tax, allowing it to accrue in the business, followed by regular MVLs when they wanted a break from a contract. I know of senior directors on contractors who would regularly MVL - hardly the sign of a professional, but again they would simply state "within the rules, isn't it?"

My hope is that the true outside IR35 roles remain, but I suspect this is unlikely to be the case for most roles given the extra legwork required by the company and the ease at which the public can be consulted and the 'tax dodger' (thanks, loan charge contractors) phrase applied to any contract who isn't on PAYE.

Mental health and suicide are a complex area but it is difficult to claim you don't expect a large bill from a loan charge when you've done all you can to avoid tax in as aggressive a manner as possible. Many people knowingly went into these schemes knowing that they were dodgy. If you know you're being misquoted owed tax by HMRC then negotiate or see them in court - such rationale can result in lowered tax bills and fairness. Expecting such tax request to disappear entirely is unfair and if marriages break up then I suggest there wasn't much of a marriage commitment there in the first place. Lived beyond your means? Tried to milk every penny possible? Yes, you deserve to pay the tax back over a period of many years.

The sympathy I have is for certain lesser paid professions who were told how to set up their affairs by an agent or sham 'tax advisor' when applying for basic care job, low paid nursing roles and the like; such agencies seem to me to be off the hook for this when HMRC should be taking them and their owners to court and humiliating them to the extent required. Highly paid contractors who knowingly went in to these schemes? Little sympathy.

[BlueSharp]

HMRC claim they have no plans to retrospectively review contracts in this scenario. It all depends on whether you believe HMRC (personally I don't trust them as far as I could throw them). It's a potentially huge amount of easy money for them.

To answer your final question: no, there's nothing to stop this happening.

You'd do well to have a read of the threads suggested by others.

HMRC also claimed there would be no martial-brakedown due to the loan charge. There are now 7 suicides and countless marital breakdowns. I would not trust them especially when the government can paint contractors as tax-dodgers to joe public.

[Paralytic]

HMRC claim they have no plans to retrospectively review contracts in this scenario. It all depends on whether you believe HMRC (personally I don't trust them as far as I could throw them). It's a potentially huge amount of easy money for them.

Small, but important, clarification. What HMRC said (my bolding):

"HMRC will not carry out targeted campaigns" - does not say they will not carry out campaigns
"will not automatically trigger an enquiry into earlier years." - does not say an enquiry into earlier years will not take place

[northernladuk]

And read almost any thread in the IR35 forums.

It's mentioned on nearly every single one.

[Snooky]

Apologies if this has already been asked.

If I have been contracting with (end client) Big Corp for X years and let's say in April 2020 the end client deems me to be inside of IR35. Will HMRC then say "OK, as they now consider you to be inside IR35, we will also consider that you have been working inside IR35 for X years at Big Corp." And then HMRC will demand back taxes for the X years I was at that end client.

Is there anything to stop this happening?

HMRC claim they have no plans to retrospectively review contracts in this scenario. It all depends on whether you believe HMRC (personally I don't trust them as far as I could throw them). It's a potentially huge amount of easy money for them.

To answer your final question: no, there's nothing to stop this happening.

You'd do well to have a read of the threads suggested by others.

[cojak]

And read this:

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ould-i-go.html

[Mordac]

Start with this thread, and use the search function next time.

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ax-claims.html

[schater]

Apologies if this has already been asked.

If I have been contracting with (end client) Big Corp for X years and let's say in April 2020 the end client deems me to be inside of IR35. Will HMRC then say "OK, as they now consider you to be inside IR35, we will also consider that you have been working inside IR35 for X years at Big Corp." And then HMRC will demand back taxes for the X years I was at that end client.

Is there anything to stop this happening?