Originally posted by dammit chloe
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!
Reply to: Hoey case lost in the Court of Appeal
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 "Hoey case lost in the Court of Appeal"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by agentzero View Post
I use the analogy of police investigations. If I get identified as having clearly done a crime, due to technological developments to analyse evidence years later, that doesn't exonerate me in any way.
People here knew they were using what were complex tax evasion schemes using offshore entities. I support the people on this forum being chased for owed monies plus interest. I simultaneously support HMRC chasing large corporations who evade tax. If we didn't have a right wing government in power now I suspect we would have acquired far better proceeds from tax, rather than accepting Amazon, Starbucks and Apple redirecting their proceeds to Luxembourg, the Cayman Islands and lots of other entities that only exist to facilitate tax evasion. It is morally right to chase the little guy and the big guy. Right now the big guy isn't being chased enough, when this should have been shut down after the 2008 financial crash.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BolshieBastard View PostSNIP
The point here isnt one of 'aggressive' tax avoidance. It is HMRC sitting on its butt for 5, 10 and even more years doing nothing when these scheme are reported to them when the SATR is submitted. That cannot be right irrespective of whether you agree with tax avoidance or not.
SNIP
People here knew they were using what were complex tax evasion schemes using offshore entities. I support the people on this forum being chased for owed monies plus interest. I simultaneously support HMRC chasing large corporations who evade tax. If we didn't have a right wing government in power now I suspect we would have acquired far better proceeds from tax, rather than accepting Amazon, Starbucks and Apple redirecting their proceeds to Luxembourg, the Cayman Islands and lots of other entities that only exist to facilitate tax evasion. It is morally right to chase the little guy and the big guy. Right now the big guy isn't being chased enough, when this should have been shut down after the 2008 financial crash.
Leave a comment:
-
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
To be honest, I don't really think it's a surprise these schemes all fail. They should not be allowed to succeed. My understanding of them is that they're agressive avoidance bordering on if not actually tax evasion. No western state can allow this kind of thing to go unchecked without ending up having tax affairs similar to Greece where tax is mostly optional. It's my opinion in fact, that these cases need to be publicised more widely to demonstrate to potential scheme users the peril of not paying what's due.
Regrettably, it seems the people organising and making a lot of money from the schemes are pretty much bullet proof which is very annoying.
The point here isnt one of 'aggressive' tax avoidance. It is HMRC sitting on its butt for 5, 10 and even more years doing nothing when these scheme are reported to them when the SATR is submitted. That cannot be right irrespective of whether you agree with tax avoidance or not.
HMRC then seem to have a loaded dice by having HMRC 'sympathetic' judges hearing the same cases they bring to court. And that's after they have dreamt up some wheeze interpretation of the legislation to back up their argument.
It is also not right that HMRC have a bottomless pit of money to take these cases through the court system whereas the tax payer has limited funds.
Last edited by BolshieBastard; 20 May 2022, 12:15.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
What you really mean is that if people weren't intent on gaming the system and dodging their responsibility to pay for the public services we all have, then the schemes wouldn't exist.
The government we all vote into power sets the level of tax they deem appropriate. I agree that present UK taxation is extortion. But that is not a justification to not pay. You want lower tax? Vote in a government that delivers lower tax.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by dammit chloe View Post
Supposedly there are more people getting caught up in schemes than ever but it is the low paid workers that are being targeted.
As for these schemes shouldn't be allowed that is true but they wouldn't exist if those working through a Ltd weren't so unfairly persecuted by successive Govts and tax system simplified. Everything in this country is a mess that will take years to sort out but it is due to decades of complacency and self-interest and HMRC is a big offender.
The government we all vote into power sets the level of tax they deem appropriate. I agree that present UK taxation is extortion. But that is not a justification to not pay. You want lower tax? Vote in a government that delivers lower tax.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DealorNoDeal View Post
I think it has got harder over the years to run these schemes but I bet there are some still going even now. HMRC should have done more, years ago, to eradicate this.
As for these schemes shouldn't be allowed that is true but they wouldn't exist if those working through a Ltd weren't so unfairly persecuted by successive Govts and tax system simplified. Everything in this country is a mess that will take years to sort out but it is due to decades of complacency and self-interest and HMRC is a big offender.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View PostRegrettably, it seems the people organising and making a lot of money from the schemes are pretty much bullet proof which is very annoying.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DealorNoDeal View Post
I think it would be a first. In the past decade or more, I can't recall a single case involving an avoidance scheme where the users have won.
The 'PAYE argument', advanced by Higgs/Hoey/NTRT, was a valid one but HMRC could never allow this to succeed. So I'm not surprised they put a team of 5 QCs on the case.
Regrettably, it seems the people organising and making a lot of money from the schemes are pretty much bullet proof which is very annoying.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by dammit chloe View PostOne does wonder what some other big groups are actually up to and if they do have some magical analysis to kick down HMRC's doors.
The 'PAYE argument', advanced by Higgs/Hoey/NTRT, was a valid one but HMRC could never allow this to succeed. So I'm not surprised they put a team of 5 QCs on the case.
Leave a comment:
-
Yes, won on the basis of what some HMRC secret internal manuals say and 5 to 1 on QCs. Joke of a system. But the judge I think was ex-HMRC and I don't think she has ever found for anyone but HMRc. Again. It's a joke.
Hopefully the appeal will be allowed and some less blinkered judge will find otherwise. Would be a nice counter balance to the RFC case.
One does wonder what some other big groups are actually up to and if they do have some magical analysis to kick down HMRC's doors. Will we ever find out?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GregRickshaw View PostImagine that, a Crown Court favouring a prosecution by the Crown. For those who thought the 'next big thing' (the MSCP cases) were going to be a walk in the park.... here is your reality right here.
Costelloe → CK & Boox
Hoey → <watch this space>
Leave a comment:
-
Imagine that, a Crown Court favouring a prosecution by the Crown. For those who thought the 'next big thing' (the MSCP cases) were going to be a walk in the park.... here is your reality right here.
Leave a comment:
- 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
- Contractors, seen Halifax’s 18-month fixed rate remortgage? Dec 5 09:59
- Contractors, don’t be fooled by HMRC Spotlight 67 on MSCs Dec 4 09:20
- HMRC warns IT consultants and others of 12 ‘payroll entities’ Dec 3 09:15
- How you think you look on LinkedIn vs what recruiters see Dec 2 09:00
- Reports of umbrella companies’ death are greatly exaggerated Nov 28 10:11
- A new hiring fraud hinges on a limited company, a passport and ‘Ade’ Nov 27 09:21
- Is an unpaid umbrella company required to pay contractors? Nov 26 09:28
- The truth of umbrella company regulation is being misconstrued Nov 25 09:23
- Labour’s plan to regulate umbrella companies: a closer look Nov 21 09:24
- When HMRC misses an FTT deadline but still wins another CJRS case Nov 20 09:20
Leave a comment: