• 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!
Collapse

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 "Eamonn Holmes is now the target"

Collapse

  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by Lance View Post
    They didn't though.

    The rest is idle speculation by an unqualified individual.

    indeed. I can't say professionally that HMRC are a bunch of amateurs with shaky laws, but it sure looks like it to me. YMMV

    Leave a comment:


  • Lance
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    If HMRC had engaged counsel do you think they would have lost?
    They didn't though.

    The rest is idle speculation by an unqualified individual.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by Lance View Post
    Except in the latter case neither HMRC nor the contractor were represented by any counsel.
    But well. you know... facts and stuff.

    If HMRC had engaged counsel do you think they would have lost?

    we have just watched Mr Beckham's lawyer (Mr Loophole) spank the scam camera partnership (I believe in the correct use of speed cameras) on a technicality.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lance
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    Except in the latter case neither HMRC nor the contractor were represented by any counsel.
    But well. you know... facts and stuff.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post


    HMRC wins IR35 case concerning BBC presenter | AccountingWEB

    IR35 case loss turns the tables on HMRC | AccountingWEB

    hmm it seems it depends how good your counsel are.

    Leave a comment:


  • OwlHoot
    replied
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post
    Incidentally the only concession HMG have made with Equity members is that they can pay their agents for finding work. There has never been an exemption for IR35.
    If they employ a stunt double, is that evidence for the right of substitution?

    Leave a comment:


  • OwlHoot
    replied
    Originally posted by BR14 View Post
    Who's eamonn holmes??
    Sherlock Holmes's smarter brother.

    No wait, what am I saying? That's Mycroft

    Leave a comment:


  • Zigenare
    replied
    Originally posted by BR14 View Post
    and, probably more to the point, - WGAF??
    Some people can be very vocal in their "don't give a ****ery"!

    Leave a comment:


  • BR14
    replied
    Originally posted by BR14 View Post
    Who's eamonn holmes??
    and, probably more to the point, - WGAF??

    Leave a comment:


  • DoctorStrangelove
    replied
    Originally posted by Big Blue Plymouth View Post
    Used to do This is Your Life. Surprised he's still around to be honest...
    Surely that was Michael Aspirin?

    Or was it Eamonn Andrews?

    Leave a comment:


  • Big Blue Plymouth
    replied
    Originally posted by BR14 View Post
    Who's eamonn holmes??
    Used to do This is Your Life. Surprised he's still around to be honest...

    Leave a comment:


  • Lance
    replied
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post
    He's Irish...

    And he's wrong. Nobody disputes he's a freelance. HMRC are only interested in his relationship with the BBC. that is almost certainly caught by IR35, as he should well realise.

    Incidentally the only concession HMG have made with Equity members is that they can pay their agents for finding work. There has never been an exemption for IR35.
    hmmm. It is ITV not BBC. But hey.. facts...


    Surely, the organisation isn't relevant though, just the working practises.
    IMO ...This will not be a test case. It will be tried on known case law. As to the outcome... who knows?

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Looks like that chap was smart enough not to spend all the money, one would have thought being must have when allegedly engaging in tax "avoidance"

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    To Paddy your wild accusations in negative rep are as credible as most of your posts.

    I do pay my taxes.


    The problem is that HMRC don't assess taxes properly and the law is sadly lacking. Its a subjective decision whether you are subject to IR35 that is why they have to take you to court and still frequently lose.
    Have another one for whinging.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    The problem is that HMRC don't assess taxes properly and the law is sadly lacking.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X