Originally posted by DirtyDog
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 "HMRC consultation on tackling marketed schemes"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by DirtyDog View PostGenerally there is evidence against the bank robber. In this case, it would be like catching a bank robber with a big bag marked "SWAG". Then seeing everyone with a similar bag has to hand over their money because they have a bag that looks like one a bank robber had.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by AtW View PostVery good, this should hopefully lead to tax cuts in the future.
Originally posted by AtW View PostWell if it's not settled, then sue them for the money+interest+damages - it's been shown that a large group of tax avoiders can pool up relatively small amounts and delay things for many years, you can still do that, just don't expect to hold onto the money in question. And why should you? Bank robber won't be allowed to keep the allegedly stolen money whilst there are legal proceedings, why should you expect the same when using DOTAS number which is a big red flag with words - "I ROBBED THE TREASURY BLIND".
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DirtyDog View PostThe upshot will be that there won't be as many cases coming up because no-one will have the spirit or money to fund a challenge any more.
Originally posted by DirtyDog View PostThat's exactly what HMRC want people to think. Well done.Last edited by AtW; 18 February 2014, 17:04.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by AtW View PostThey have got legal right to do that in time that was allowed to them (6 years I think). I believe High Court answered that question anyway, basically saying that there is no obligation on HMRC to challenge such schemes quicker than they did (as long as it is within allowed time it's ok).
The upshot will be that there won't be as many cases coming up because no-one will have the spirit or money to fund a challenge any more.
Originally posted by AtW View PostWhat's more important is that even if HMRC challenged schemes on day 1 it would still be long legal battle, so it's entirely reasonable for them to ask to deposit tax for cases that close to those that have already been settled. Don't like it? Don't get into DOTAS scheme, simples. And if you were in DOTAS scheme then you are getting what you deserved - nobody put a gun to your head to do that, in fact I've noticed some people jumped from one scheme to another showing complete contempt of the system, well - you are reaping what you have sown.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DirtyDog View PostIn fairness however it should be said that Vodafone should be paying significantly more tax than they are.
Originally posted by DirtyDog View PostThey have better lobbyists, though. How else do you not only avoid paying £6bn but you also get an agreement that HMRC will leave you alone and you can continue to use the scheme?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by AtW View PostIn my view they should recoup it.
In fairness however it should be said that Vodafone is already paying a lot of taxes and provides employment to tens of thousands and services to millions of customers - that's not the same case as some guy pretending he is not a full time employee and using fake loans to disguise renumeration.
They have better lobbyists, though. How else do you not only avoid paying £6bn but you also get an agreement that HMRC will leave you alone and you can continue to use the scheme?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DirtyDog View PostSo there should be an incentive for HMRC to come to trial quickly, then, rather than dragging it out and hoping that people lose the will to fight, which seems to be their current modus operandi.
What's more important is that even if HMRC challenged schemes on day 1 it would still be long legal battle, so it's entirely reasonable for them to ask to deposit tax for cases that close to those that have already been settled. Don't like it? Don't get into DOTAS scheme, simples. And if you were in DOTAS scheme then you are getting what you deserved - nobody put a gun to your head to do that, in fact I've noticed some people jumped from one scheme to another showing complete contempt of the system, well - you are reaping what you have sown.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DirtyDog View PostIt's not unreasonable for HMRC to recoup £6bn from Vodafone, but they haven't done that (nor will they).
In fairness however it should be said that Vodafone is already paying a lot of taxes and provides employment to tens of thousands and services to millions of customers - that's not the same case as some guy pretending he is not a full time employee and using fake loans to disguise renumeration.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Ticktock View PostIrrelevent. It also assumes that the very rich will not be affected by this.
Originally posted by Ticktock View PostUnless you're suggesting that we start means testing everyone to decide how much of an impact it will have, and then decide whether they should place the amount in question into escrow?
Originally posted by Ticktock View PostBesides, with the cuts in government spending and drive to reduce deficits, are you suggesting that people witholding taxes has no effect on government spending? Arguably it has a larger effect, as it hits a larger number of people.
Originally posted by Ticktock View PostThere is an argument to say that you own that house BECAUSE of avoiding paying tax, that you have already enjoyed the benefit of not paying the tax, and why should you be able to continue enjoying those benefits while in dispute.
Originally posted by Ticktock View PostAnd let's not forget, if they have already proved that a mechanism is false, and by looking at the mechanics of a second scheme see it works in the same way, then in reality this will happen anyway, it will just take longer and cost taxpayers more.
Originally posted by Ticktock View PostHyperbole. Yes, of course, the nasty old HMRC will just look at you and say "All is ours". They use the same calculation as employed at present when deciding the amount of tax due, except now they would run that calculation at the start of the process instead of 10+ years later when they manage to drag the scheme into proceedings.
Originally posted by Ticktock View PostAs for making it impossible to fight... Surely the scheme providers have all promised to fight on their members behalfs? And they are all upstanding organisations. It's not like they're scam artists.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by cojak View PostWow!
Posting this in General.
Brave man...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DirtyDog View PostThe difference being that if I hold on to my money and am proved wrong, the cost to the other party is negligible and can easily be compensated with via charging interest.
Besides, with the cuts in government spending and drive to reduce deficits, are you suggesting that people witholding taxes has no effect on government spending? Arguably it has a larger effect, as it hits a larger number of people.
Originally posted by DirtyDog View PostIf HMRC hold demand money that I haven't got, take my house and everything I own, force me into bankruptcy and then turn round and return the money because they were proved wrong, there is very little they can do at that stage to compensate.
And let's not forget, if they have already proved that a mechanism is false, and by looking at the mechanics of a second scheme see it works in the same way, then in reality this will happen anyway, it will just take longer and cost taxpayers more.
Originally posted by DirtyDog View PostOnce HMRC take everything because that's what they estimate the tax take to be (on whatever basis they use to determine how much is owed), they also make it nigh-on impossible to fight - so HMRC get the headlines of how they must be right because no-one has successfully challenged them.
As for making it impossible to fight... Surely the scheme providers have all promised to fight on their members behalfs? And they are all upstanding organisations. It's not like they're scam artists.
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: