Reply to: Need help completing self assessment !

[eek]

He didn't say it wasn't legitimate, but certainly before the dividend tax changes it was definitely a way of avoiding tax.

Can I work as a self employed person?

If not how else do I work for myself in such I way that the money is always under my control....

It's really worth continually repeating myself but we use Limited Companies not to avoid tax but because various laws were created in the mid 1970's that left us with no choice but to form a limited company if we wanted to get work via agencies.... The fact a company can be used to avoid tax is a product of tax changes that occurred afterwards...

[LondonManc]

I really wish those people who were scammed by tax avoidance schemes would grasp the fact that provided you jump through the IR35 loops limited companies are valid and above board.

I know you to to internally justify the mess you are in by looking at other options and saying that's a scam, that's a scam but until the public sector changes come in working as a limited company is perfectly legitimate

The fact that these things are called schemes should give them away, surely?

[cojak]

I know you to to internally justify the mess you are in by looking at other options and saying that's a scam, that's a scam but until the public sector changes come in working as a limited company is perfectly legitimate

And will be in the private sector even after the public sector changes come in, until the private sector gets pressurized into the same changes.

[Dylan]

I really wish those people who were scammed by tax avoidance schemes would grasp the fact that provided you jump through the IR35 loops limited companies are valid and above board.

I know you to to internally justify the mess you are in by looking at other options and saying that's a scam, that's a scam but until the public sector changes come in working as a limited company is perfectly legitimate

He didn't say it wasn't legitimate, but certainly before the dividend tax changes it was definitely a way of avoiding tax.

[eek]

Please use the limited company avoidance method until further notice or an actual umbrella company.

I really wish those people who were scammed by tax avoidance schemes would grasp the fact that provided you jump through the IR35 loops limited companies are valid and above board.

I know you to to internally justify the mess you are in by looking at other options and saying that's a scam, that's a scam but until the public sector changes come in working as a limited company is perfectly legitimate

[eek]

I still had people that ran one of these schemes tell me in all seriousness, face to face, that there was QC approved, so still OK.

The only questions to ask regarding that is how much was that very liquid lunch and did he manage to keep a straight face throughout?

[MrMarkyMark]

Ah, so it's HMRC who should be warning contractors/limited company startups about this sort of thing, not the "umbrellas" themselves is what you mean?

It's certainly not fair that the contractor carries all the liability for this (not that I've fallen for it because a seasoned contractor warned me about it back when I started out). I can see how believable it can be and appeals to natural human greed; if you've not got any level of paranoia in you whatsoever then it's an accident waiting to happen.

I still had people that ran one of these schemes tell me in all seriousness, face to face, that there was QC approved, so still OK.

They stopped the sales pitch, we were at a family do, when they realised I was a fairly seasoned guy that had seen it all before.

It got better.........they were ex Sunday Solutions employees

[LondonManc]

Hello LondonManc what I'm suggesting is that the Huitson decision was an opportunity for HMRC to do the following:
Publish it widely (on here for example) - with a warning that any scheme could effectively be shot down retrospectively and ask all promoters to issue a warning to their subscribers. Failing that issue such a warning to all people whom they has an ongoing enquiry against with the taxation equivalent of a diseased lung.


All of which they are discussing now to address a problem that should be small and reducing by the day

Agreed DR re 2008 and Walter J who seemed to be on an HMRC crusade - but the actual case ran mostly out of steam by 2010/11. A lot of people have been told by their promoters that this type of action could not be foreseen - this is clearly not the case at or around the time of Huitson - it was both possible and forseeable. After Huitson there were other cases that made it more possible and more forseeable. However, Huitson being mentioned now with abandon by same promoters.

Ah, so it's HMRC who should be warning contractors/limited company startups about this sort of thing, not the "umbrellas" themselves is what you mean?

It's certainly not fair that the contractor carries all the liability for this (not that I've fallen for it because a seasoned contractor warned me about it back when I started out). I can see how believable it can be and appeals to natural human greed; if you've not got any level of paranoia in you whatsoever then it's an accident waiting to happen.

[neil99]

So, apart from WTT (who I have emailed and waiting a call back), which other tax specialists are well regarded on this forum?

Talk to WTT because they have bespoke packages for contractors.

Abbey Tax should be able to help too. They do the IPSE tax services,

Ignore all the unhelpful comments on here. A lot of people have remarkable powers of hindsight but talk out their rears.

[QCApproved]

Hello LondonManc what I'm suggesting is that the Huitson decision was an opportunity for HMRC to do the following:
Publish it widely (on here for example) - with a warning that any scheme could effectively be shot down retrospectively and ask all promoters to issue a warning to their subscribers. Failing that issue such a warning to all people whom they has an ongoing enquiry against with the taxation equivalent of a diseased lung.


All of which they are discussing now to address a problem that should be small and reducing by the day

Agreed DR re 2008 and Walter J who seemed to be on an HMRC crusade - but the actual case ran mostly out of steam by 2010/11. A lot of people have been told by their promoters that this type of action could not be foreseen - this is clearly not the case at or around the time of Huitson - it was both possible and forseeable. After Huitson there were other cases that made it more possible and more forseeable. However, Huitson being mentioned now with abandon by same promoters.

[D15]

So, apart from WTT (who I have emailed and waiting a call back), which other tax specialists are well regarded on this forum?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The BN66 retro legislation, which was the subject of the Huitson appeal, was enacted in 2008.

I remember at the time quite a few ebt loan promoters did draw attention to it on their websites but only to say "nothing like this could happen to our scheme".

BN66 was dismissed as a special case, whereas the reality is it was the writing on the wall.

[LondonManc]

A new scheme in the spotlight has been posted elsewhere on this board.
The scheme may well be legally sound however this is now completely irrelevant as decisions in Huitson and other cases allow retrospective changes in the tax laws as and when required.
I'm amazed there are people still using schemes and receiving loans from 5th Apr 2013 onwards when all the enquiries were re-animated by HMRC in late 2012 and these boards kicked off.
As an aside I think there should have been a Huitson health warning by promoters enforced by HMRC in 2011 or 2012 when those judgements were lodged.
Please use the limited company avoidance method until further notice or an actual umbrella company.

Are you saying that the "umbrella" company that the OP used/was taken advantage of by was legally obliged to advise them of the Huitson situation?

[QCApproved]

A new scheme in the spotlight has been posted elsewhere on this board.
The scheme may well be legally sound however this is now completely irrelevant as decisions in Huitson and other cases allow retrospective changes in the tax laws as and when required.
I'm amazed there are people still using schemes and receiving loans from 5th Apr 2013 onwards when all the enquiries were re-animated by HMRC in late 2012 and these boards kicked off.
As an aside I think there should have been a Huitson health warning by promoters enforced by HMRC in 2011 or 2012 when those judgements were lodged.
Please use the limited company avoidance method until further notice or an actual umbrella company.

[cojak]

Recieved a letter from HRMC asking me to complete a self assessment as they think I have recieved loans which they believe should be taxable.

My "umbrella" company has advised that "loans" do not have to be declared on my SA and if I wish they can complete the SA on my behalf, i am a little reluctant to let them do this?!

Can any of you recommend a company who could advise me on my situation please ?

Thanks

Are you still with your "umbrella" company?

I would suggest throwing your "umbrella" company's name into the search box and seeing how other "employees" have filled out their SA.