I Have Just Exceeded 150,000 Views On...
Technology0 min ago
Should We Pay Christa's Hmrc Bill?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by -Talbot-. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
These people are all grown-ups - with tax advisers of their own.
They may have been 'encouraged' by the BBC to set up companies to avoid paying NI and to (possibly) pay less tax, but they are not children and should accept the costs of being found to be employees rather than sub-contracted companies.
The most the BBC should pay is the Employer's NI contribution.
They may have been 'encouraged' by the BBC to set up companies to avoid paying NI and to (possibly) pay less tax, but they are not children and should accept the costs of being found to be employees rather than sub-contracted companies.
The most the BBC should pay is the Employer's NI contribution.
It would seem that it is the Beeb who are the ones doing the avoiding going by Jolyon Maugham, a tax barrister, who has stated “It is fair to say that it [the BBC] has profited from being party to abusive tax avoidance arrangement,” he added.
The tribunal apparently stressed that HM Revenue & Customs had “never suggested” Ms Ackroyd was a tax cheat or had acted “in any way dishonestly”.
A slightly more in depth article here:
https:/
The tribunal apparently stressed that HM Revenue & Customs had “never suggested” Ms Ackroyd was a tax cheat or had acted “in any way dishonestly”.
A slightly more in depth article here:
https:/
“Why do you think it would be Jo Public picking up any shortfall?”
Maybe because of this sub-headline, Zacs:
“Now angry stars have been hit with demands by HMRC and say BBC should pay”
There is little doubt that both the BBC and the individuals profited from these arrangements. The individuals concerned were not vulnerable and naïve souls. They almost certainly had their own independent financial advisors who would have briefed them on the details and implications of their arrangements with the BBC. The tribunal ruling in favour of the BBC against Ms Ackroyd is very similar to the “Pimlico Plumbers” case where MD Charlie Mullins argued that plumbers working exclusively for his company were self-employed contractors. The tribunal ruled that whilst Ms Ackroyd may have been an independent freelancer when she first started working for te BBC, her employment relationship changed and that should have been recognised and remedied. The report I read (below) also suggested that “The BBC themselves may now also be required to make payments to HMRC in respect of unpaid tax relating to Ms Ackroyd.”
http://
I find that a little disturbing. Both the BBC and Ms Ackroyd gave the scheme a run and they came unstuck. They should each be responsible for their own liabilities.
Maybe because of this sub-headline, Zacs:
“Now angry stars have been hit with demands by HMRC and say BBC should pay”
There is little doubt that both the BBC and the individuals profited from these arrangements. The individuals concerned were not vulnerable and naïve souls. They almost certainly had their own independent financial advisors who would have briefed them on the details and implications of their arrangements with the BBC. The tribunal ruling in favour of the BBC against Ms Ackroyd is very similar to the “Pimlico Plumbers” case where MD Charlie Mullins argued that plumbers working exclusively for his company were self-employed contractors. The tribunal ruled that whilst Ms Ackroyd may have been an independent freelancer when she first started working for te BBC, her employment relationship changed and that should have been recognised and remedied. The report I read (below) also suggested that “The BBC themselves may now also be required to make payments to HMRC in respect of unpaid tax relating to Ms Ackroyd.”
http://
I find that a little disturbing. Both the BBC and Ms Ackroyd gave the scheme a run and they came unstuck. They should each be responsible for their own liabilities.
The sub heading in no way implies that Jo Public would be picking up the tab. If Ms Ackroyd and her like are found to have underpaid, then it’s not like you or I suddenly get an extra tax bill or coding. So there’s no way ‘we’ would pick up the bill.
If, as a presenter, you’re faced with a situation where your employers ‘ask’ you to set up a company or have your contract terminated, then you would.
If, as a presenter, you’re faced with a situation where your employers ‘ask’ you to set up a company or have your contract terminated, then you would.
"Point out to me where a ‘star’ has said that, or even hinted that, the rest of the populace should pick up the alleged shortfall in their tax payments."
In the original Mail report:
“Now angry stars have been hit with demands by HMRC and say BBC should pay”
I take it that "demands" are tax demands and since the BBC is entirely funded by the public the "stars" are saying the public should pay. Unless, of course, we dismiss the entire report. But since it was the subject of the original question that would seem a bit daft.
In the original Mail report:
“Now angry stars have been hit with demands by HMRC and say BBC should pay”
I take it that "demands" are tax demands and since the BBC is entirely funded by the public the "stars" are saying the public should pay. Unless, of course, we dismiss the entire report. But since it was the subject of the original question that would seem a bit daft.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Looks Like Bob The Builder Has Done A...
News3 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.