Originally posted by OnYourBikeGB
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 "FT weekend Article on Setback for HMRC avoidance campaign"
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View PostEven though they only take the strongest cases to court, they still lose 1 in 5.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by EBTContractor View PostHMRC wins 80% of cherry-picked and low-hanging fruit cases.
Then takes schemes and products they know they can win to the courts so they can advertise their statistically-fabled 80%.
80% of people know that.
Leave a comment:
-
Lest we forget
HMRC wins 80% of cherry-picked and low-hanging fruit cases.
Then takes schemes and products they know they can win to the courts so they can advertise their statistically-fabled 80%.
80% of people know that.
Leave a comment:
-
but of course Gauke would have everyone believe its a slam dunk and that HMRC always win....deary me...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Not Losing Any Sleep View Post
Update please Hector
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by webberg View Postit is indeed.
Worth a close read because it may be that the "victory" is Pyrrhic.
In essence the scheme was held to be in Sch 24 for tax purposes and as such the relief for the company is available to a degree based on what happens with the beneficiary. A taxable amount accruing to the beneficiary within 9 months of a year end triggers relief for the company.
In this case I think that the appeal against the tax liability of the director was decided at FTT and not appealed to the UTT. I have to check back (busy today and gig tonight) but I suspect that he was held not taxable on receipt of whatever consideration arose from the shares and therefore no deduction.
I've not really read it all in enough detail yet but just be aware that the structure was essentially shifting value between shares and other instruments. It was executed very well. It will be appealed.
Interesting week for Thornhill QC. He's two;one down on the week.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2015/60.pdf
Yes, Tower Radio!
HMRC loses employee bonus tax appeal | AccountingWEB
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Not Losing Any Sleep View Post
Worth a close read because it may be that the "victory" is Pyrrhic.
In essence the scheme was held to be in Sch 24 for tax purposes and as such the relief for the company is available to a degree based on what happens with the beneficiary. A taxable amount accruing to the beneficiary within 9 months of a year end triggers relief for the company.
In this case I think that the appeal against the tax liability of the director was decided at FTT and not appealed to the UTT. I have to check back (busy today and gig tonight) but I suspect that he was held not taxable on receipt of whatever consideration arose from the shares and therefore no deduction.
I've not really read it all in enough detail yet but just be aware that the structure was essentially shifting value between shares and other instruments. It was executed very well. It will be appealed.
Interesting week for Thornhill QC. He's two;one down on the week.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by webberg View PostIt's a case involving a company called Scotts Atlantic.
Scotts designed and sold film finance schemes that HMRC claims are tax avoidance. When that particular piece of manure hit the ventilation, the company decided to extract as much cash from the company as possible before putting the firm into liquidation.
The share scheme involved setting up shares with attached option rights (and a few other bells and whistles) and gifting them to an EBT as part of a remuneration package. The argument at the company level was whether the shares assignment was a "payment".
The FTT said yes. The UTT said no. The Court of Appeal will inevitably be involved here.
Not yet on the website for decisions but expect it to be soon.
http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financea...Ltd-v-HMRC.pdf
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Not Losing Any Sleep View PostThe FT reportted on a loss for HMRC in the UTT.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ebff9486-b...#axzz3TDwKqirq
Ernst Young notes that the case has an additional angle in that the UTT: "Has quashed HMRC's contention that it should ignore legislation and look at the substance of what has happened".
Does anyone know whic case this relates to? I haven't been able to find it.
Scotts designed and sold film finance schemes that HMRC claims are tax avoidance. When that particular piece of manure hit the ventilation, the company decided to extract as much cash from the company as possible before putting the firm into liquidation.
The share scheme involved setting up shares with attached option rights (and a few other bells and whistles) and gifting them to an EBT as part of a remuneration package. The argument at the company level was whether the shares assignment was a "payment".
The FTT said yes. The UTT said no. The Court of Appeal will inevitably be involved here.
Not yet on the website for decisions but expect it to be soon.
Leave a comment:
-
FT weekend Article on Setback for HMRC avoidance campaign
The FT reportted on a loss for HMRC in the UTT.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ebff9486-b...#axzz3TDwKqirq
Ernst Young notes that the case has an additional angle in that the UTT: "Has quashed HMRC's contention that it should ignore legislation and look at the substance of what has happened".
Does anyone know whic case this relates to? I haven't been able to find it.Tags: None
- 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: