Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Ciaran, Sep 5, 2016.
I suspect it's all true and a good read but **** that on a chewsday mornin
Walter Smith encouraged Neely to spank children when Director at Dundee Utd
This runs deep...
Can we not just agree that Scotland isn't a very safe place for children?
yes. Because of the Irish
Send them bk m8
I think the main point of that article is...
Even the cùnts on the other side of the planet know Celtic fans are scum.
The main point of the article is that Walter encouraged Neely.
Well the bit i read did.
We all know about your comprehension of what is actually written though Mindy.
Remember the EBT debacle!
It was glorious.
You still confused by it?
It was indeed glorious. The way you kept insisting your incredulous rantings were correct even when I posted HMRC content that proved without a shady of a doubt you were wrong.
And here you are being so very wrong today again.
Different subject same old Mindy.
I remember having to point out to you, from your own posts, that it was to do with Disguised Remuneration.
Not all EBTs were Disguised Remuneration.
Also known as DR or NON REPAYABLE LOANS.
Let that sink in.
It's them effin Catholic schools again.
Ah ha ha ya fùcking dafty. ALL EBTs are classed as disguised remuneration and that's why ALL EBTs now pay tax and national insurance.
Mindy still gloriously fùcking up.
Here you go Mindy have another read. I'm sure you'll work it out eventually.
Probably around 2030 the way your going.
During the 1990s and 2000s, it was quite common for employers to pay bonuses to their employees by transferring the award money to an offshore employee benefit trust. The funds could then be allocated to employees in the form of an interest-free loan which was to be left outstanding indefinitely. In some cases, employees then accessed the bonus immediately, without paying tax on the amount.
In the Finance Act 2011, the disguised remuneration (DR) rules were introduced to ensure that the employees were taxed on EBT loans as employment income, with no refund of the tax if the loan was eventually repaid. However, at this point, the DR regime did not apply to EBT loans that were made before the 2011 Finance Act came in. Since then, HMRC has continued to take legal action against employers and employees and encourage them to sign up to a ‘settlement’ opportunity. However, it was not until the Finance Bill 2017 that the law was finally changed.
A charge will not apply if by 5 April 2019:
the loan has been repaid in full
the loan has been taxed in full under the disguised remuneration rules, as updated in 2016
any exclusions apply
the loan is from an amount on which income tax has already been paid
The words above are literally telling you its those who abused it.
Literally telling you not all EBTs will be taxed, especially legitimate loans paid back.
Please try to understand words.
Mindy Mindy Mindy. That is what I posted last week and what you've totally disregarded to insist that only cùnts who abused an EBT were liable to pay tax on them. The words you posted are telling you that ALL EBTs are liable for tax even the ones not abused.
Oh and I take it you have dropped the "but but but they irny talking about EBTs, they is talking about disguised remuneration" argument now.
You really are a dense fùcker Mindy.
To mix things up a bit, I shall just leave this here...
Mindy has confused himself because he doesn't really understand what he is talking about. He doesn't realise that the loans HMRC are talking about is the actual EBT and not the bonuses paid to those who had the EBT. Tax is due on the actual "loan" paid into the EBT and that tax is non refundable if that loan (ebt) is paid back in full.
Or in other words, as Mindy would put it, the EBT is not abused.
Still at least I'm getting a laugh eh!
Learn to read.
Its specifically says "non repayable loans" will be taxed.
Learn to read.
It says "loans that have been repaid are not taxable" because THEY ARE NOT REMUNERATION IF THEY ARE CLEARLY REPAID LOANS.
People were hiding their income AS EBT loans.
Hiding income as an EBT = Disguised Remuneration
Learn to read.
Pretending their income was NOW a loan, having never made a repayment in 8 years, did not wash and they hit 50k people who were either at it or, like you, didn't understand it.
Learn to read.
2 Categories, in the document you posted, exist for not paying tax on EBT Loans (specifically loans as there are 3 other forms of EBTs) yet apparently this means EVERYONE PAYS TAX on them
Learn to...never mind, i think its too late.
In the Finance Act 2011, the disguised remuneration (DR) rules were introduced to ensure that the employees were taxed on EBT loans as employment income, with no refund of the tax if the loan was eventually repaid
Can you not read!