Reply to: Lambard Wealth (and other new schemes) - Any opinions?

[Scruff]

Just had "Ricky" on the phone again. He really needs to remember how to Lambada, since the last lesson was forgotten. Reminder lesson given.

Same Bulltulip about having won 2 cases, 8 years ago.

[webberg]

Tempted? - Go here, read this and then DON'T JOIN

http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-...following.html

[Scruff]

I have just been called by "Ricky" from Lambard. After a few minutes of listening to his dribble, he was sent off to do the Lambada. I don't trust their Trust.

Allegedly they have won 2 cases against HMRC and all that Jazz...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I am and have been for 20 years, selling my extensive expertise in a fairly wide area of IT services. I have multiple clients and pick and choose when and where I work, I control my P&L, I make a consistent profit and pay all the taxes I am liable for. So in what universe does that make me not operating a business?

I suspect you are the exception that proves the rule. You won't find many IT contractors operating like you at most client sites. I've certainly never met one.

[normalbloke]

I am and have been for 20 years, selling my extensive expertise in a fairly wide area of IT services. I have multiple clients and pick and choose when and where I work, I control my P&L, I make a consistent profit and pay all the taxes I am liable for. So in what universe does that make me not operating a business?

EBT schemes were never intended for protecting salaries, only pension payrolls. When bankers started using them for stop paying UK taxes, HMRC got interested and the fun started.

As for IR35 protection, don't make me laugh. The rules for IR35 are well understood and manageable. Thinking there was some magic scheme when someone gets paid 15% of your gross and give you 85% back an dno taxes due was never even vaguely realistic, and only a fool would have thought it was.

They were anything but well understood in 2001 when I and a lot of contractors joined a scheme. But now, I agree, IR35 is better (though not wholly) understood and joining a scheme now is sheer folly.

[Boobetty]

you have both my sympathy and support in your various fights

You have a perverse way of expressing your 'sympathy and support'.

[malvolio]

... was your opening gambit in this thread so it's no wonder that there are those who would have a go at you. You, as one would say on the playground, started it this time.

Your answer to the ISAs post was absolutely legitimate and spot on (not that you need any validation from me of course!) but you spoiled and personalised it with that last sentence about deserving what you get which is why I could only draw the conclusion I did.

It's no excuse of course, but look at the time stamp for that post...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

All the contractors I've ever worked with had the hallmarks of disguised employees. I don't mean what was written in their contracts (right of substitution etc), I mean what they were actually doing on a day to day basis for the client.

There was always some element of Supervision, Direction or Control. And when has a right of substitution ever been exercised? Smoke and mirrors is what that is.

That's not to say that there aren't some out there who are genuinely in business on their own account. It's just I've never come across one.

The only reason most people get away with it is because IR35 is unenforceable. But that does not mean the authorities regard it as acceptable.

[squirrel]

I appreciate that entirely ...

Use one for the wrong reason and you deserve what you get.

... was your opening gambit in this thread so it's no wonder that there are those who would have a go at you. You, as one would say on the playground, started it this time.

Your answer to the ISAs post was absolutely legitimate and spot on (not that you need any validation from me of course!) but you spoiled and personalised it with that last sentence about deserving what you get which is why I could only draw the conclusion I did.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Yes it is avoidance, I totally agree. Snag is, it's entirely acceptable.

Especially to those benefitting from it, eh? Surely you don't think, even for a nano-second, that Joe Public, whose opinions were made loud and clear to us on S58 by you, think it's acceptable. If you do, you are very seriously deluded. I'm not being a hypocrite here, people should follow the law. But please don't try to sit on that high moral stool of yours, I think one of the legs is missing.

[malvolio]

Then stay off these threads.

We may be foolish, we may deserve everything that's coming to us in your opinion and you have every right to that opinion but there are a lot of very worried people out here facing a very uncertain future looking for some level of comfort that there is support and to fully understand what is happening.

The bollox you're spouting does not help in any way whatsoever and it's a shame that you seem to take pleasure in it.

Just to be clear, I take no pleasure at all in your problems; in fact you have both my sympathy and support in your various fights. That doesn't alter my opinion, which I've held since around 2007 when this all started to go pear shaped, and if some takes a dig at how I choose to run my life and my business, they will be reminded of that opinion.

[squirrel]

I'm not getting into this stupid loop again.

Then stay off these threads.

We may be foolish, we may deserve everything that's coming to us in your opinion and you have every right to that opinion but there are a lot of very worried people out here facing a very uncertain future looking for some level of comfort that there is support and to fully understand what is happening.

The bollox you're spouting does not help in any way whatsoever and it's a shame that you seem to take pleasure in it.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Yes it is avoidance, I totally agree. Snag is, it's entirely acceptable.

I don't want to get into an argument but I doubt Government/HMRC would see it that way.

They may view it that many freelancers are abusing incorporation purely for tax purposes.

[malvolio]

Jeez there are some sanctimonious prigs out there.

No doubt paying themselves minimum wage and a shed load of divis, and all sorts of other tricks to minimise their tax bill. Contriving their contracts so they don't look like disguised employees.

Not tax avoidance of course. Perish the thought.

Yes it is avoidance, I totally agree. Snag is, it's entirely acceptable. Or are you saying that people should wrongly state their position and go out of their way to pay taxes they don't actually owe? I thought you were against paying taxes for which you aren't actually liable?

I'm not getting into this stupid loop again. People who took to schemes to avoid IR35, rather than umbrellas or learning how to deal with it, without understanding the risks they were taking were either foolish or mistaken or, most likely for most of them, totally misled. That has no bearing at all on those that didn't take that route.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Jeez there are some sanctimonious prigs out there.

No doubt paying themselves minimum wage and a shed load of divis, and all sorts of other tricks to minimise their tax bill. Contriving their contracts so they don't look like disguised employees.

Not tax avoidance of course. Perish the thought.