which the promoters erroneously believed to be legal when they offered them to clients.
- 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 "Tax Scheme Promoters Resist Search Warrant"
Collapse
-
Tax Scheme Promoters Resist Search Warrant
AccountingWeb : Tax scheme promoters resist search warrant
Tax scheme promoters resist search warrant | AccountingWEB
The underlying issues relate to tax avoidance schemes involving the conversion of remuneration into loans, which the promoters erroneously believed to be legal when they offered them to clients. The mastermind behind the scheme in question was Paul Baxendale-Walker (aka Paul Chaplin).
The underlying transactions featured an initial attempt to reclassify remuneration as a loan, enhanced by attempts to ensure that this would remain effective after the introduction of the disguised remuneration loan charge on 5 April 2019. The case turned on whether Judge HHJ Mairs had validly issued a warrant allowing HMRC to search premises and obtain specific documents.
See Link above for summary and below for judement.
Ashbolt & Anor v Revenue & Customs & Anor [2020] EWHC 1588 (Admin) (18 June 2020)Last edited by eazy; 30 November 2020, 10:20.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: