Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Have you read IR35 now Cyners and do you see the association with the years I posted down, not forgetting The Tories came to power 0n 6th May 2010. Labour being in power for all the years before this in my illustration.

Penny finally dropped?????????????????????

Alders what were you doing hanging around the bus station LOL LOL LOL.

Naughty boy.

Catching a Bus what else , lol

haven't read anything .... may do tomorrow :-)

IR35 has been a waste of time and money. It never saved much money and cost a lot to administer. I used to operate a an individual limited company for years before starting a bigger company. I have friends who have operated under IR35 for years and it makes very little difference to their final income.

In May 2009 the Professional Contractors Group received a reply to a request under the Freedom of Information Act to HMRC, asking just how much tax revenue IR35 had in fact raised for the exchequer. The FOI reply revealed that in the tax years 2002/03 to 2007/08, IR35 directly raised just £9.2 million. This equates to an average of around only £1.5 million per tax year, less than 1% of the expected amount.

How much did the administration of IR35 cost?

In September 2011 a Freedom of Information Request revealed that the number of cases reviewed had fallen from 158 (year ending April 2007) to 12 in year ending April 2010 and 23 in year ending April 2011. The same document also gives the "tax yield received for the requested years" as having fallen from £1,906,619 to £219,180.

ALL UNDER LABOUR

Question time.

Grant Shapps...blown away by logic and reasoning (buffoon)

other non entities...similar.


Stand out contributors: By audience

John Sentamu (Bishop)

Julia Hartley-Brewer (broadcaster, ukip-ish)

Hays another one who hasnt read the link. READ IT, the fact is IR35 enforcement figures under Labour were far higher than figures today under the coalition where just 4 Tax Officers and a Chief, police the scheme.

And unlike Cynic insists it is not Evasion but is in fact AVOIDANCE.

To put it in very simplistic terms it is weeding out employees who claim they are self employed. Self employment giving them the chance to pay 20% rather than 45% which they should be paying.

And what Hays as missed is the deterrent factor, admittedly much less under the present government.

But as you can see above it hadn't benefitted the country by introducing IR35. It probably costs more to administrate than it produces. Another stupid Labour idea.

Wooo hooo ... Tories totally against the minimum wage being introduced as it will cost jobs , make us uncompetitive , etc . etc and now they championing it and gonna raise it well above the rate of inflation !

Rumanions and Polish say thank you :-)

How can you place a value on the deterrent factor???? so Hays comment above is complete boll-x.

AND if we look more carefully we find this..........

On 10 Mar 2011 the Office of Tax Simplification recommended that the treasury should suspend IR35 or compel HM Revenue & Customs to make changes to its implementation until wider structural reform to integrate Income Tax and NIC is introduced. After that, the Chancellor announced the Government would keep IR35 'as is' during Budget 2011, but with changes to HMRC administration and to create a new IR35 Forum.(wikipedia).........................ends

Now we know why we just have 5 employees administering the scheme in fact PLAYING at trying to catch offenders.

Compare this to the 5,000 plus DSS investigative officers who are collecting just 1/50th of annual tax avoidance and you get a true picture of just who this government stands for.

GF , whatever Haystack says it has put an end to "self employed .... NOT" taking the pee.

That's why they don't need loads to administer it cos it's so cut and dry after IR35 , you either are or you aint.

Regards

Dil , O level accounts and economics :-)

... and if they paid me £250,000 a year to investigate the top earners I reckon with a little persuasion and no court cases I could get 10X that back off them in taxes due.

Tory party donations may suffer though.

Indeed Dil but the enforcement returns under this government are very small.

Lends support to the deterrent factor.

And I agree you are or you aint under IR35.

Hope cynic is now going to see what balderdash he was posting yesterday. To be fair though I couldnt tell him about chemicals and the oil business.

Each to their own etc etc.

I had unclassified in my o level chemistry exam so wouldn't dream of explaining how the atom bomb works to cynic who's post I find in the main very informative.

Therefore he should respect the fact that I got o levels in accounts and economics and if I remember right you got a couple of CSE grade 4's in said subjects :-)

Nite mate.

LOL......same old Dil. nite bud.

electionista ‏@electionista 6h
UK - YouGov/Sun poll:

CON 32%
LAB 39%
LDEM 10%
UKIP 12%

i now sort of know what IR35 is, and it clearly has no bearing at all on the "snippet" i reported - i.e. apparently, so it was reported, the 1% of highest salary earners contribute 30% of the income tax haul

if taking divi instead of salary is a LEGITIMATE means of reducing one's income tax liability, then so be it ..... nevertheless, divi is scarcely tax free, though of course NI is not payable on it either by the company or the individual
if the rules change and the above is no longer so, then to try to do so, would fall under evasion