Originally posted by ASB
View Post
- 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.
Logging in...
Previously on "BN66; what the hell is going on over there?"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by AtW View PostGood pick - he did not say it's illegal, probably to avoid defense lawyers to pick at his main decision, but I guess that follows from the fact that tax will need to be paid back? I suppose maybe there is legal distinction, but surely not practical.
a) Accept the scheme does not work (this is STILL in fact untested) and resubmit tax returns and pay up (or otherwise accept the principle of the debt). Assuming of course that they have not received a closure notice.
b) Accept as above, accepting the closure notice [i.e. withdrawing their appeal against it]
c) Request determination under the TMA
d) Wait for HMRC to take their case to the commissioners.
I know you can read, so read the judgement carefully. In it you will actually see that the judge suggest that the outcome of an appeal to the commissioners - or indeed any further appeal to the courts as a result of this is far from certain. He accepted that the arguments as to whether the scheme worked were in fact persuasive.
Whether the scheme worked or not was not in fact being tested in any way. The applicant has not been ordered to pay the disputed taxes - though of course it seems fair to assume HMRC will put pressure on him to roll over.
Of course it is entirely possible I haven't got a clue what I'm taking about - but this was a judicial review to ascertain whether or not BN66 was compatible with the ECHR.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Incognito View PostHow the hell can you compare this lot to the likes of Philip Green? He lives in Monaco for flips sake.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...agenews.uknews
He flies into work and then flies home. The BN66 lot certainty didn't make any pretence at living in the Isle of Man.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ASB View Post[picky]
And just where did he say that?
In fact he said nothing nothing of the sort. The judge was not in any way ruling on the legality or otherwise of the scheme.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Churchill View PostThe tax that his employees pay is nothing to do with the amount of tax that Philip Green should pay.
You're an arse!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...agenews.uknews
He flies into work and then flies home. The BN66 lot certainty didn't make any pretence at living in the Isle of Man.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ASB View Post[picky]
And just where did he say that?
In fact he said nothing nothing of the sort. The judge was not in any way ruling on the legality or otherwise of the scheme.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by AtW View PostYes, I am sure you'd like that to happen - from HMRC's point of view they are getting tired with this tulip, so the best strategy for them is to introduce element of risk - you use some shady scheme that appears legal now (judge says it wasn't actually), you pay less tax but you carry the risk of having to repay all that money back if your "clever" scheme turns out to be illegal.
And just where did he say that?
In fact he said nothing nothing of the sort. The judge was not in any way ruling on the legality or otherwise of the scheme.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by AtW View PostHiring at least one who is a bona fide full time employee who isn't related to you in any way (this means not your wife etc).
That would be a good start.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Mich the Tester View PostPrecisely how many people would you like me to employ for me to be exempted from income taxes?
That would be a good start.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Mich the Tester View PostPrecisely how many people would you like me to employ for me to be exempted from income taxes?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by AtW View PostHe runs businesses that are responsible for employing and paying proper tax many thousands of people. How many people were employed by businesses run by those people affected by the scheme apart from themselves and their spouses?
So Peter Green, despite his offshore status, is responsible for bringing in a lot of dosh to the Revenue, consequently he is not the enemy here. Now if he used the same offshore scheme to dodge tax paid to his staff, then HMRC would be on him very quickly and rightfully so.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by threaded View PostYeah, that's a good point. The ruling is perverse enough to require more legal types playing with it, which brings me to threaded's first law of legal systems: all legal systems are designed to enrich lawyers and everything else is a side effect. The outcome then was pretty obvious.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Moscow Mule View PostThat's as maybe, and likely to be debated by a higher court.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Mich the Tester View PostDon't know, don't care. My point is about the retrospective nature of this. It isn't the first time. I seem to recall Labour suddenly slapped a windfall tax on the profits of oil companies. They're getting the UK a bad reputation.
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: