Originally posted by The Lone Gunman
- 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!
Reply to: Artic in the Lords today
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.
Logging in...
Previously on "Artic in the Lords today"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by malvolioIncidentally the "journalist" quoted was Nicola Ross-Martin, resident tax expert at Accountingweb and a long time supporter of Arctic. I tend to trust her judgement
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by dang65Most up-to-date article I can find on Google.
a) No verdict likely for 6-13 weeks.
b) Journalist concludes, "we are quietly confident that it will fall in favour of the taxpayer."
Incidentally the "journalist" quoted was Nicola Ross-Martin, resident tax expert at Accountingweb and a long time supporter of Arctic. I tend to trust her judgement
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by The Lone GunmanWhich paper?
I do not believe this. Arctic only gave their evidence yesterday so I od not see how a decision could have been made already. Besides neither this site, shout99 or the PCG has reported a result yet.
Leave a comment:
-
Most up-to-date article I can find on Google.
a) No verdict likely for 6-13 weeks.
b) Journalist concludes, "we are quietly confident that it will fall in favour of the taxpayer."
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by angusgloverTo the newspaper? It was on the bar if that helps...
I do not believe this. Arctic only gave their evidence yesterday so I od not see how a decision could have been made already. Besides neither this site, shout99 or the PCG has reported a result yet.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by angusgloverSaw a report in the newspaper last night that said they had lost and HMRC were told to toughen up.....
Leave a comment:
-
Saw a report in the newspaper last night that said they had lost and HMRC were told to toughen up.....
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by FlubsterSo, does the verdict get announced today?It has already taken six years to resolve but a landmark tax case that yesterday began its final three-day hearing in the House of Lords may not be settled for at least another six weeks.
Leave a comment:
-
They lost didn't they and HMRC were told to get tough on contractors...so we get shafted again.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by zathrasIt is relevent because the IR made it relevent. Part of their case is that they have not changed the way they act and to allow the CoA result to stand would open the floodgates (although interestingly they were quoted as saying in City A.M. that the estimated £1B cost to business was over stated and it would 'only' be £250m).
Apart from the fact there is a little thing called Pepper v Hart. This is a court case which basically allows for the statements of ministers to be used when legislation is uncertain.
However I do not believe that S600A is unclear. What is unclear is whether HMRC interpretation of it in this case is consistant with the legislation as written.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by zathrasApart from the fact there is a little thing called Pepper v Hart. This is a court case which basically allows for the statements of ministers to be used when legislation is uncertain.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by dang65but I can well imagine that many people would read this story and say, "Get in there HMRC and teach these scamming gits a lesson."
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: