• 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!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "BBC executives fall foul of IR35"

Collapse

  • Notascooby
    replied
    Originally posted by cojak View Post
    Yes it was.
    Monday afternoon and the heating in the office is tooooo high. I need a nap.

    Leave a comment:


  • cojak
    replied
    Originally posted by Notascooby View Post
    I hope this is tongue in cheek?
    Yes it was.

    Leave a comment:


  • Notascooby
    replied
    Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella View Post
    It's still not fair though Cojak - collective responsibility to clear the national debt means that 100% should be paying their fair share otherwise there won't be enough cash to support those who make no contribution whatsoever to the states' coffers - it's only fair after all
    I hope this is tongue in cheek?

    As if these few make any bit of difference to the national debt! The huge amount of borrowing is what adds to the debt, a few millionaires wont make the slightest difference whether they pay 0% tax or 50%.

    Large Corps paying nothing make a difference but not as much as huge public sector borrowing just adding more and more...

    Classic Santelli Rant on the Buffett Rule | ZeroHedge

    Leave a comment:


  • LisaContractorUmbrella
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    I think he means like Moira Stuart? Jeremy Paxman and others have also been mentioned.

    or do you mean the stars that are investing in films that is being investigated?

    Investment or tax dodge? Celebrities face huge bills over film industry tax loophole | Mail Online
    Well the Moira Stuart scenario would appear to cover earnings from personal appearances or talks (only £22k for the year) and if she is able to determine where and to whom she speaks I can't see any problem with running a Ltd Company outside IR35; it's not as if the earnings from her employment were put through the company (unless she is really badly paid!)

    The second scenario appears to be a case of HMR&C changing their mind and the investors not having a crystal ball - a worryingly common trend.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella View Post
    Don't know the scenario Brillo - any linkys?
    I think he means like Moira Stuart? Jeremy Paxman and others have also been mentioned.

    or do you mean the stars that are investing in films that is being investigated?

    Investment or tax dodge? Celebrities face huge bills over film industry tax loophole | Mail Online

    Leave a comment:


  • LisaContractorUmbrella
    replied
    Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
    Not sure if this is the right forum for this discussion - but what about the "stars" with their own "production companies"?
    Don't know the scenario Brillo - any linkys?

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella View Post
    It's still not fair though Cojak - collective responsibility to clear the national debt means that 100% should be paying their fair share otherwise there won't be enough cash to support those who make no contribution whatsoever to the states' coffers - it's only fair after all
    Not sure if this is the right forum for this discussion - but what about the "stars" with their own "production companies"?

    Leave a comment:


  • ASB
    replied
    Originally posted by BolshieBastard View Post
    I can see all this leading to one man limited co's being made illegal (well, not illegal but severely restricted by artificial means!).
    Well, it used to be that that was effectively the case. In 1983 when MyCo was incorporated ISTR there had to be 3 shareholders, also there had to be two officers. However these were easy objectives to meet.

    In quite a lot of mainland europe there isn't really the concept of the "1 man company" and where there is they are often subject to quite a variety of different, and often more stringent, rules.

    We'll see, but i think it is quite likely there will be more tightening up (i.e. introducing all sorts of other artificial barriers). The groundwork is being laid with this constant stream of "this isn't morally right" type stories being pushed.

    Leave a comment:


  • scooby
    replied
    Originally posted by BolshieBastard View Post
    I can see all this leading to one man limited co's being made illegal (well, not illegal but severely restricted by artificial means!).
    I made a similar comment the other week... awaiting NLUK accusing you of scaremongering now!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Sockpuppet
    replied
    Originally posted by BolshieBastard View Post
    I can see all this leading to one man limited co's being made illegal (well, not illegal but severely restricted by artificial means!).
    What like via IR35?

    Leave a comment:


  • BolshieBastard
    replied
    I can see all this leading to one man limited co's being made illegal (well, not illegal but severely restricted by artificial means!).

    Leave a comment:


  • LisaContractorUmbrella
    replied
    It's still not fair though Cojak - collective responsibility to clear the national debt means that 100% should be paying their fair share otherwise there won't be enough cash to support those who make no contribution whatsoever to the states' coffers - it's only fair after all

    Leave a comment:


  • cojak
    replied
    BBC News - More than 70% of high earners paid 50% tax rate

    Leave a comment:


  • cojak
    replied
    It's getting a bit ludicrous now.

    Leave a comment:


  • LisaContractorUmbrella
    started a topic BBC executives fall foul of IR35

    BBC executives fall foul of IR35

    What do the panel think? From reading the article it seems as though the original contractual arrangement was perfectly legitimate - a case of moving goal posts perhaps Gulf Times ? Qatar?s top-selling English daily newspaper - Britain/Ireland
Working...
X