Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man

piebaps

Regulars
  • Content Count

    4,138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

piebaps last won the day on February 2

piebaps had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,975 Excellent

1 Follower

About piebaps

  • Rank
    pieus et bapus
  • Birthday 03/24/1967

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The Jewel of the North

Recent Profile Visitors

1,437 profile views
  1. It's mad Sultan. Castletown are after doing something similar too. It must be contagious.
  2. We're going to be fine - unless of course Marksies sarnies aren't delivered.
  3. You could - but you would be wrong. This from IOM Airport's twitter feed FLYBE OUTLINES FUTURE PLAN FOR ISLE OF MAN ROUTES •Routes to Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester to continue •Two Q400 aircraft to be replaced by two ATRs operated by Stobart Air •Flybe base to close under phased and managed programme
  4. Its hardly local news though is it?
  5. piebaps

    TT 2018

    Lets be clear about the £70k. There is no evidence of any kind to show that he is paid £70k or even £7k. Its a made up number from a few pages back. The director of motorsports is on a max 0f £90k https://hr.gov.im/media/1040/ntnsp-pay-assimilation-2019.pdf See payband 38
  6. I read this as there's a problem at the school with motorists potentially colliding with children and nearby residents would rather see this happen than have the cars driving down the public highways on which they live.
  7. Not yours though. Remember you were binned off.
  8. piebaps

    TT 2018

    Agreed Sid. He'll be back though. Flouncers generally are. Neil - his name was Moyle not Moyles and he did hold back. he didn't specifically name any of the people he thought shouldn't be involved in the organisation of motorsport. As we've seen on numerous occasions the Coroner of Inquests can bluster all he or she likes. Ultimately they have little or no power to make any changes.
  9. Jesus, what a great addition to MF you are.
  10. If your mum is 96 years old then a rolled up Hello magazine could be quite damaging
  11. That's not a defence. They're words of the tax tribunal's judgement.
  12. They didn't. They bought into something which the sellers claimed to give a tax saving.
  13. Boo From my earlier post, the people using the schemes often don't understand it and receive little or none of the benefit. This case was recently decided at a Uk tribunal. http://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j11254/TC07292.pdf The interesting point in this case is at paras 18 & 19 "His motivation in entering into these schemes was solely to avoid the complexities of running his own company or his own business. When considering whether or not to enter the schemes he simply compared the post-tax cash he would receive under his existing arrangements, via a UK umbrella company, and the post-tax cash he would receive under the Penfolds arrangement. The cash which he would receive under the Penfolds arrangement was slightly better than he was currently receiving but Mr Hoey did not really understand that this was because he would be paid in a way which was designed to avoid paying UK tax on a large part of his earnings. Importantly I note that Mr Hoey did not receive the full benefit of the absence of UK tax on his earnings because the fees chargeable by the various intermediaries were between 10% and 18% of his income, compared to the 1% which might be charged by a simple UK based umbrella company. A substantial part of the hoped for benefit of avoiding UK tax was therefore absorbed by the fees being charged by the promoters and facilitators of the scheme"
  14. HMRC are saying that there is no loophole. Many of the schemes simply don't work as intended. or in fact weren't operated as intended. The HCA workers caught up were definitely coerced. It was work this way or get another job.
  15. Not quite right there GD. No laws were broken and while some may have taken a gamble, many didn't. Here's a potted history. In the late 1990s the UK Gov introduced some new rules around the taxation of earnings, especially around the self-employed. These were announced by the then Inland Revenue it its press release numbered IR35. In the absence of a catchy name for the new rules, they quickly became known as IR35. This kickstarted the advisors into trying to find loopholes. When they thought they'd found one, they packaged them up into schemes which were initially sold to their clients before finally being mass marketed. Several have used the IOM over the years and a couple have found their way into the IOM Courts. https://www.judgments.im/content/J1442.htm This is a good example as the owners battle for the rights to use the scheme. It didn't end well for the clients however https://www.gov.uk/tax-and-chancery-tribunal-decisions/robert-huitson-v-the-commissioners-for-hm-revenue-and-customs-2017-ukut-0075-tcc We then have; https://www.judgments.im/content/J1267.htm This also didn't end well for the clients either http://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j11254/TC07292.pdf The interesting point in this case is at paras 18 & 19 "His motivation in entering into these schemes was solely to avoid the complexities of running his own company or his own business. When considering whether or not to enter the schemes he simply compared the post-tax cash he would receive under his existing arrangements, via a UK umbrella company, and the post-tax cash he would receive under the Penfolds arrangement. The cash which he would receive under the Penfolds arrangement was slightly better than he was currently receiving but Mr Hoey did not really understand that this was because he would be paid in a way which was designed to avoid paying UK tax on a large part of his earnings. Importantly I note that Mr Hoey did not receive the full benefit of the absence of UK tax on his earnings because the fees chargeable by the various intermediaries were between 10% and 18% of his income, compared to the 1% which might be charged by a simple UK based umbrella company. A substantial part of the hoped for benefit of avoiding UK tax was therefore absorbed by the fees being charged by the promoters and facilitators of the scheme"
×
×
  • Create New...