Whoa - IR20 again

[Spacecadet]

His note puts the IRS at the front line of his issues but there is more to it than that like big business driving down contractors' pay.

His original web message has been removed but there is a copy here

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...102stack1.html (SFW)

I think getting ****ed over in the tax audit was the final straw

[sweetandsour]

I wonder if that plane crash in Austin is a tax protest too?

Bloomberg are saying that the building is home to the septic Hectors.

His note puts the IRS at the front line of his issues but there is more to it than that like big business driving down contractors' pay.

His original web message has been removed but there is a copy here

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...102stack1.html (SFW)

[Tarquin Farquhar]

IIRC, the case you mentioned was for someone who had stayed out of the UK and didnt reside here for more than the statutory 90 or 91 days. This has previously satisfied the non dom criteria. However, it now appears HMRC and the courts have interpreted legislation differently and claim that since he has a property here, he's not non dom ergo, change in interpretation to suit HMRC.

No, it never did.

There are more criteria than that, for example having cut your ties with the UK, and he never did satisfy that one.

What happened was not retrospective legislation, it was just him being told that he was wrong when he thought he had got away with it.

Moral: decide whether you have a connection with Britain or not. If yes, pay British taxes. If no, make sure you behave accordingly.

[Spacecadet]

IIRC, the case you mentioned was for someone who had stayed out of the UK and didnt reside here for more than the statutory 90 or 91 days. This has previously satisfied the non dom criteria. However, it now appears HMRC and the courts have interpreted legislation differently and claim that since he has a property here, he's not non dom ergo, change in interpretation to suit HMRC.

As I said in my post, the courts came to the conclusion as he still had substantial ties to the UK.
the 91 days is only 1 aspect of the non dom criteria

[HairyArsedBloke]

I wonder if that plane crash in Austin is a tax protest too?

Bloomberg are saying that the building is home to the septic Hectors.

[BolshieBastard]

But this ruling is as much to do with tax law re-interpretation as it is about tax exiles.

The only difference is 'who' decides who's tax concessions should be "re-interpreted". Maybe the criteria will be, "whoever we think is a Tory Toff".

You pissing in the wind mate. Too many people just dont appreciate the implications here. Or at least they wont until a brown envelope from HMRC lands on their doorstep.

IIRC, the case you mentioned was for someone who had stayed out of the UK and didnt reside here for more than the statutory 90 or 91 days. This has previously satisfied the non dom criteria. However, it now appears HMRC and the courts have interpreted legislation differently and claim that since he has a property here, he's not non dom ergo, change in interpretation to suit HMRC.

[BlasterBates]

But this ruling is as much to do with tax law re-interpretation as it is about tax exiles.

The only difference is 'who' decides who's tax concessions should be "re-interpreted". Maybe the criteria will be, "whoever we think is a Tory Toff".

I was referring to that ruling. I don't see HMRC have got anywhere with IR35, and I don't envisage that either. In other words yes they'll go after the tax avoidance and they'll probably start getting trust funds. But I don't see this extending to Ltd's even if you operate in different countries even as long as you really do business there.

[BobTheCrate]

This will mainly affect exiles in countries with which there is no agreement i.e. Seychelles Cayman Islands, and so on.

But this ruling is as much to do with tax law re-interpretation as it is about tax exiles.

The only difference is 'who' decides who's tax concessions should be "re-interpreted". Maybe the criteria will be, "whoever we think is a Tory Toff".

[Churchill]

I have a suggestion - Destroy current HMRC policy (including the morons who work there) rip it all up and start again.

Emphasise the need for all to contribute to the best of their ability for the benefit of society as a whole. Find a way for people to want to contribute.

[BolshieBastard]

Tax exiles may have to pay back taxes after ruling

Apologies if this mirrors Scooter's BN66 thread - didn't see it until after posting this.

So let me get this straight. I would have thought most personal taxation and certainly most company and corporate taxation is open to interpretation. HMRC guidelines guide us (and accountancy) as to what interpretation is and has for many years been broadly considered acceptable by HMRC.

This latest ruling by 3 judges if not over turned on appeal, paves the way for most individuals and companies to have their tax affairs to be re-interpreted in favour of the HMRC and applied retrospectively.

Presumably HMRC (and Gov't therefore) can and will arbitrarily decide who's tax guidance can be re-interpreted.

I say, let's have as a priority any tax concessions previously enjoyed by judiciary also re-interpreted in favour of HMRC and have that retrospectively applied as well. It's only fair after all.

I can't think of a more efficient way to bring legal clarity to this.

Exactly. People who think they have nothing to fear as BN66 doesnt affect them are missing the wider implication of these two decisions if, appeals against HMRC are not successful.

[Spacecadet]

This case points out the importance of breaking ties with the UK
The gentleman in question still had a very large property in the UK in which he was the main resident

[BlasterBates]

Perhaps not quite as far reaching as maybe appears.

Earnings from business activities are covered in the DTA's between European countries and the US, and are exempt from being taxed twice. Employment income is also exempt. Only divis and interest would be subject to a top up.

This will mainly affect exiles in countries with which there is no agreement i.e. Seychelles Cayman Islands, and so on.

I've been tax resident in several countries for years.

Even if they were to apply this ruling to me (highly unlikely), it would have no effect in spite of earnings in several European countries including Switzerland.

The group that will get hit hard would be the Middle East "tax free" contractors.

[BobTheCrate]

Tax exiles may have to pay back taxes after ruling

Apologies if this mirrors Scooter's BN66 thread - didn't see it until after posting this.

So let me get this straight. I would have thought most personal taxation and certainly most company and corporate taxation is open to interpretation. HMRC guidelines guide us (and accountancy) as to what interpretation is and has for many years been broadly considered acceptable by HMRC.

This latest ruling by 3 judges if not over turned on appeal, paves the way for most individuals and companies to have their tax affairs to be re-interpreted in favour of the HMRC and applied retrospectively.

Presumably HMRC (and Gov't therefore) can and will arbitrarily decide who's tax guidance can be re-interpreted.

I say, let's have as a priority any tax concessions previously enjoyed by judiciary also re-interpreted in favour of HMRC and have that retrospectively applied as well. It's only fair after all.

I can't think of a more efficient way to bring legal clarity to this.