I've started this here because I have no interest in the lovely argument in the thread in the Schemes section of the forum. I've linked to it so anyone can see it if they want but I'm hoping that if the argument is to continue it can stay there and not in this thread.

What concerned me was this section:
Originally posted by bobbydazzler75 View Post
Their view was that HMRCs discretion under s684(7A) means that even if you were successful in arguing that the sums paid to me were always earnings; HMRC will always be able to disapply the PAYE provisions to make me liable; be that in respect of re pre or post DR loans. Indeed the same is true of their arguments regarding the PAYE credit under Reg 185 where HMRC have repeatedly said that the exercise of discretion (which appears to have no time limit!) removes that credit.
Graham has said something similar.

It appears that HMRC is arguing, at least in the case of a scheme, that they have the discretion, even after the fact, to disapply PAYE provisions to make an individual personally liable.

Does that signal they might try the same approach with IR35, to effectively bypass the corporate veil by saying they have simply (and retrospectively, no doubt) disapplied the PAYE provisions and thus can hold the individuals personally liable for income tax and EE NI obligations?

Or am I reading too much into it?

Sorry if I'm again displaying my ignorance of accounting / tax / legal matters. But if HMRC is laying the groundwork for a mechanism to effectively render the corporate veil moot in IR35 cases, then Hoey becomes a big deal for a lot of people beyond the schemes, and a lot of people may need to be alert to this.