Member Since: 5th Apr 2005
5th Sep 2020
You do realise that this innocent person has, apparently, been suppressing her turnover year on year. The Tribunal’s assessments was nearer HMRCs view than her accounts.
7th Jul 2020
Watch that you are not confusing the time limits for failure to notify (as in the Lo case) and time limits where there had been no FTN.
They needed the negligence transitional provision for FTN so that the change did not bring into charge an event that was previously time barred.
5th Jul 2020
You are right. The assessments were made in 2017. I presumed that they were made before then because that was the provision quoted by the Judge. But it wouldn't be the first time HMRC included a copy of the wrong version of the law in their bundle.
Its quite strange because the burden of proof is on HMRC to show that the assessments were correctly made and the Judge doesn't really make any finding on that at all.
4th Jul 2020
It did. See par 110.
6th Jul 2017
In what way will the EBT decision have any bearing on insolvency laws?
22nd Apr 2016
CoS was Wrong
Seems like we are still going around circles just with different people in the circles now..
Sorry for coming in so late.
I agree that the Court of Session got it wrong. I hope that will be corrected in the Supreme Court.
The new proposed law is being made to redress the balance. Whether or not the loans are legally loans in the eyes of the law, they are in reality a form of remuneration. The proposal is to tax that form of remuneration, and most people who have contributed to this discussion see nothing wrong with that
22nd Apr 2016
A "disguised remuneration loan tax"
Who will determine whether a loan is "disguised remuneration" and how?
It is the role of Parliament to make legislation. In a situation where a loan is taken instead of remuneration, the remuneration is disguised as a loan and will be caught,
21st Apr 2016
500 posts too many
DotasScandalDotOrg wrote:Andy Davis wrote:
Don't get me wrong. I, and the other posters in this thread who defending the position are not asking for any sympathy. Merely that those who entered into such arrangements are allowed a fair hearing in a court of law.
....we'd have managed to get the point across!!
But maybe it's gonna take another 500...
Among those 500 posts you have been banging on about wanting a day in court to defend your "this is a loan" position. I agree, but the article has nothing to do with whether these are loans or not. The article tells us about a new tax, let's call it a "loan tax", that will apply from 2019.
If you are correct and you have not received remuneration but loans, you will need to pay this new loan tax.
If you are wrong and you have received remuneration, you will pay income tax, and the loan tax will not apply.
7th Nov 2015
How does that give an unfair advantage? Tax efficiency is available to all.
7th Nov 2015
Some here seem to be saying that because the EBT was implemented badly, there was an advantage on the field, but had it been implemented correctly (probably just without the side letters) then there would be no advantage.
How did these side letters improve the footballing skills?