• 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!

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.

Previously on "HMRC's top ten tips for contractors"

Collapse

  • DonkeyRhubarb
    replied
    Originally posted by handyandy View Post
    Interesting that the phrase 'Contractor loan scheme' is used so often but no other types of scheme are. Is the focus all on loan schemes now?
    Most of the schemes around currently, and in the past 10 years, involved loans.
    Last edited by DonkeyRhubarb; 11 February 2016, 09:45.

    Leave a comment:


  • handyandy
    replied
    Interesting that the phrase 'Contractor loan scheme' is used so often but no other types of scheme are. Is the focus all on loan schemes now?

    Leave a comment:


  • DonkeyRhubarb
    replied
    The 80/20 also overlooks all the cases which never get to court.

    The statement also makes it sound like taxpayers are in the driving seat as to which cases get to court.

    HMRC, damn HMRC and statistics.

    Leave a comment:


  • webberg
    replied
    Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
    I want to know about the schemes within the 20% they lost...
    The 80% is a lie and ergo, so is the 20%.

    the win ratio is arrived at by combining results at all levels of the tribunals and Courts. If you strip the FTT and UT results then the ratio starts to return to 50/50.

    There is little consistency and often comes down to how much personal sympathy the judge might have for the claimant.

    There are a couple of cases where a con man ran an operation in which you could invest with him to buy expensive shotguns. When he "sold" them, he encouraged you to reinvest the proceeds in new guns. It was a Ponzi scheme. However for tax purposes, you made an investment, made a profit and that's taxable. the fact that you reinvested was a choice.

    HMRC raised assessments even though victims never saw the cash. two investors went to Court to challenge the tax bills in two separate cases. The first guy lost on the grounds that he was a businessman who could/should have spotted the scam and was being greedy. The second guy looked doomed. However either he was in the same Lodge as the judge (a different judge) or he played the "poor innocent" very well and the judge held that HMRC should apply a discretion which meant no tax due.

    So a bit like statistics, you can take your choice of which was correct and in the above case my suspicion is that the HMRC win is within the 80% value, but the loss is not as it was HMRC being told to apply a discretion.

    Life is seldom fair.

    Leave a comment:


  • DonkeyRhubarb
    replied
    HMRC wins around 80% of avoidance cases that the taxpayer chooses to take to court
    That statement is so loaded, I don't know where to start with it.

    If only HMRC were as good at administering tax as they are at spin...

    Leave a comment:


  • NotAllThere
    replied
    HMRC wins around 80% of avoidance cases that the taxpayer chooses to take to court
    I want to know about the schemes within the 20% they lost...

    Leave a comment:


  • webberg
    replied
    Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
    If I was a ruthless, unconscionable bastard, I might start up a scheme myself. It's easy money, and virtually all the risk is on the users.
    I'm told that HMRC consider the provider to fall within the POTAS disclosure rules. Not that it will make much difference to be honest.
    Last edited by webberg; 10 February 2016, 15:49. Reason: general idiocy

    Leave a comment:


  • webberg
    replied
    An underground scheme once discovered (and they will be), will have the proverbial domestic appliance with taps and several yards of plumbing thrown at it. Penalties are a certainty.

    where will the providers and their "QC opinions" be then?

    Watching from afar.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Bloggs
    replied
    Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
    I think HMRC may, rightly, fear that the schemes are about to get a second wind.

    APNs have killed off the DOTAS reporting regime. From now on, schemes will not be disclosed. Everything will be opaque. Usage will be much harder for HMRC to detect.

    The latest onslaught on contractors (T&S, divi tax, revised IR35) will be music to the ears of the scheme promoters.

    If I was a ruthless, unconscionable bastard, I might start up a scheme myself. It's easy money, and virtually all the risk is on the users.
    The writing is on the wall for all to see. The schemes will not be killed off they will go underground. If a user declares a reasonable salary through PAYE, the chances of being caught as a scheme user will be almost zero.

    Leave a comment:


  • WTFH
    replied
    Surely their top two tips should be:


    1. Become a global business, we won't chase you for tax.
    2. Become an MP, we won't chase you for tax.

    Leave a comment:


  • DonkeyRhubarb
    replied
    The law of unintended consequences

    I think HMRC may, rightly, fear that the schemes are about to get a second wind.

    APNs have killed off the DOTAS reporting regime. From now on, schemes will not be disclosed. Everything will be opaque. Usage will be much harder for HMRC to detect.

    The latest onslaught on contractors (T&S, divi tax, revised IR35) will be music to the ears of the scheme promoters.

    If I was a ruthless, unconscionable bastard, I might start up a scheme myself. It's easy money, and virtually all the risk is on the users.
    Last edited by DonkeyRhubarb; 10 February 2016, 11:01.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nocaster
    replied
    Originally posted by webberg View Post
    https://www.gov.uk/government/public...r-loan-schemes

    The above was published last week.

    I recommend you read this and commend the fact that, 10 years after they should have done something, HMRC is trying (weakly) to be proactive.

    However, I think you then need to be aware that the "Guidance" is in some places (in my opinion) incorrect and in other places is making threats that would be action only in the most severe of criminal cases.

    I'm sure this will bring a lot of opinions. I have made mine available to Big Group for now and will post them here in a week or so. Or you can PM.
    read it. Is that horse I can hear in the distance, now that they're closing the stable door..

    Leave a comment:


  • webberg
    started a topic HMRC's top ten tips for contractors

    HMRC's top ten tips for contractors

    https://www.gov.uk/government/public...r-loan-schemes

    The above was published last week.

    I recommend you read this and commend the fact that, 10 years after they should have done something, HMRC is trying (weakly) to be proactive.

    However, I think you then need to be aware that the "Guidance" is in some places (in my opinion) incorrect and in other places is making threats that would be action only in the most severe of criminal cases.

    I'm sure this will bring a lot of opinions. I have made mine available to Big Group for now and will post them here in a week or so. Or you can PM.

Working...
X