You might also be interested in
Replies (15)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
OMG Aweb!
"Recruitment company under fire for "agressive" avoidance".
Someone needs to learn to spell, or at least use a spellchecker!
"aggressive" is the correct
"aggressive" is the correct spelling my friend.
see below link
Yes we know...
"aggressive" is the correct spelling my friend.
see below link
Aweb corrected their "agressive" error and we've moved on.
Perhaps ...
... they are recruitment consultants to the farming industry?
With kind regards
Clint Westwood
Our humble apologies
To atone for this enormous slight to our honour, I will now punch myself square in the face.
Thanks Francois
Your* forgiven. But I'm also glad you punched yourself in the face.
(* I've made this grammatical error on purpose to make you feel better.)
Thanks!
Your* forgiven. But I'm also glad you punched yourself in the face.
(* I've made this grammatical error on purpose to make you feel better.)
You're a real pal!
Once you start
going down the route of making Directors and Shareholders liable for Ltd Co's tax liabilities you might just as well get rid of Limited Companies. The thing to do is use the law and prosecute those that have offended. If they haven't broken the law then they cannot be personally liable. Tax rules do not need to be tightened. All you need is (as was originally intended but not carried out because HMRC couldn't be bothered) that any complex scheme comes before a tribunal before it is put into place not after.
I've thought about that, John
I believe they have something similar in the USA where schemes have to be approved before use, but all the scheme promoters would do is submit an idea based on a real situation, and then artificially generate the same situation.
The facts are; some of the avoidance schemes are outright fraud, so why don't they just throw the scheme promoters in the slammer and make them repay the lost tax, along with their generous commission? If you organised a crime for a client you would be jailed ... what's the difference?
Sounds like a lot of hot air
Based on the sketchy facts the BBC gathered it is hard to see why the scheme would work given the apparent connection between the companies and the rules that only allow on Ers Allowance per 'group'. So no need for tightening of rules if the existing ones already preclude the perceived advantage. As to the need to impose a personal liability on directors, surely this already exists. If the company is solvent, it needs to pay its tax debts. If insolvent then it is forced by its creditors into liquidation or administration. Within those processes the insolvency practitioner joins the dots, finding 150 connected companies with a couple of employees each, NI liabilities in each company and apparent director misconduct in reaching that position. IP at that point pursues the directors under the legislation we already have. Its knee jerk legislation to try and attack specific situations that results in sloppily worded and unnecessary tax law which more often than not impacts on the 999 untargeted 'innocents' as well as the 1 'guilty' party for whom it was intended. Sensationalism indeed.
Payroll?
Are the facts not broadly the same as when HMRC were offering an incentive to file end of year payroll online? I think at the time certain individuals set-up numerous payroll schemes in order to claim the incentive, even though very little (if anything) went through the payroll.
It's not just the Agencies playing games.
I have a 'client' who is the son of a work colleague who I have been helping out with his tax. The lad - who is now only 24 years of age - with no experience of business - is essentially a labourer working for small local firm (he was originally directly employed).
About 4 years ago he was told by his employer that he needed to become a sub-contractor and would be taxed under the CIS scheme. About 2 years ago his boss received advice from a local 'accountancy firm' and he then insisted that all his 'employees' (sub-contractors) should each form a limited company and the company would be paid for their work. The client had no option and he was forced to agree if he wanted to continue working - which he did.
He is now in the position whereby his employment rights have been taken away from him. He has no rights to holiday pay, statutory notice, sickness benefit, severance pay or redundancy. He can turn up for work only to be told that he is not needed that day and has no recourse on his 'employer'. He has no understanding of tax law, company law and employment law - it is very sad in addition to being very wrong - such is the world that we live in.
As an aside - he, and his half a dozen workmates, now account for 7 of David Cameron's "new companies" which form part of the "record" period of economic growth statistics. Entrepreneurs ?? - I don't think so.
The Employment Allowance is a God send to this lad - at least he stands to get something out of the scandalous and farcical situation that he finds himself in.
@Pete_t
We are seeing similar, where contractors and companies are now refusing to deal with umbrella companies and they demand that workers (eg. labourers, road workers and the like) operate through a ltd co.
It's a total farce, and the worker has a choice of complying with the demands, or not having any work at all. It's extra business for accountants, but what about the workers who 'pay' the cost caused by the contractors transferring their liabilities onto the lowest paid person?
Better odds coming?
The latest cuts announced for HMRC increase your chances of getting away with this sort of scam. There's only so much far that can be trimmed and any attempt to get through on the phone or get a prompt repayment or response to a letter indicates that this is a department in crisis.