Thanks for this. On your second point, from my personal experience (we investigated the scam when it was offered to us before avoiding it based on the bad smel

Thanks for this. On your second point, from my personal experience (we investigated the scam when it was offered to us before avoiding it based on the bad smell it gave off), my instinct would be to disagree. When we did the calculations, we would have been hundreds of pounds per week better off under the conditions of the scam than if we had paid tax directly as a contractor or under an umbrella company who reported the full salary as a salary. I don't have much doubt that these nurses and doctors didn't benefit financially by only paying [tax and NI on minimum wage + the slightly higher umbrella fee] rather than [tax and NI on their full salary + a smaller umbrella fee]. Although that's not to say that they thought what they were doing was shady, or even that they actively chose that particular umbrella company. I dont see the benefit to the NHS either. If the NHS pays the contractor's salary of £1000/month (under subcontract conditions) to: - Umbrella company A, who then subtracts a fee + withholds (for HMRC) NI and tax for minimum wage before paying the contractor minimum wage + a loan of whatever remains from the £1000 and - Umbrella company B, who subtracts a fee + withholds NI and tax for the full salary before paying the contractor the remainder My understanding is that to the NHS both scenarios look the same (a cost to them of £1000/month), but in scenario A the contractor and umbrella company (through their ability to charge a higher fee than their competitors and still attract clientele) benefit from money which otherwise would have gone to HMRC.