New Advice for IR35 Tax Avoidance

[Foxy Moron]

It may not have been intended by the Treasury or HMRC but the best way to avoid IR35 and Section 660 is to become gay.

That would certainly be in your best financial interest.

If you were to offload all the shares in your company to someone else then you would not be caught for IR35 as you no longer have a material interest in the company.

However, it WOULD apply if the person who you gave the shares to was either your huasband or wife.

However, if your partner was gay that would not apply as the relationship has no legal status.

Section 660

Again, according to HMRC, if you gave some of your shares in your company to your husband and wife, and paid him or her dividends then HMRC would be likely to be after you under Section 660.

However, if your partner was gay then you would almost certainly be able to avoid Section 660, especially as HMRC would unlikely be able to make the connection. You do not have to put the sexual orientation of yourself and your gay partner on your tax returns.

Immune

Therefore, gay couples appear to be immune from both IR35 and Section 660.

One isn’t suggesting that straight people should turn gay just for tax purposes and to save a bit of money. One is just pointing out the anomaly.

Of course, there are a lot of disadvantages in being gay, in that they are not entitled to be considered a partner for legal and tax purposes.

However, at least in the contracting profession, there are some advantages in not being seen to be a legal partner of one’s actual partner.

Supposedly the ‘pink’ market is a very lucrative one for advertisers, as gay couples normally have two good incomes and no children to support from them.

However, that doesn’t apply in the IT profession, and Umbrella companies and IR35 consultants must be frustrated at losing such a lucrative market.





Must admit I always fancied men from the moment I became Ltd


Just read a comment and spat my coffee

"> Of course, there are a lot of disadvantages in
> being gay, in that they are not entitled to be
> considered a partner for legal and tax purposes.


And then there is the entire willy/bum thing

BrianC"

[Moscow Mule]

Broken link.

It's not broken, it's blocked by the filter. Read the T&C OP.

[TykeMerc]

Broken link.

[wc2]

Broken linky

[Weltchy]

http://www.itcontractor.com/Articles...08&photopage=0

Um.

PS - That would be from one of the "other sites". The comments make me laugh though. You need to change notagoodsite to "it contractor" without the space