BN66; what the hell is going on over there?

[Churchill]

I believe it's a responsibility of each taxpayer to ensure they pay correct amount of tax - if you are not sure get an accountant. If he advises you to take some scheme that miraculously reduces tax from 40% to 3.5% then you accept fully the risk that the scheme can be too good to be true.



Yes, I am sure you'd like that to happen - from HMRC's point of view they are getting tired with this tulip, so the best strategy for them is to introduce element of risk - you use some shady scheme that appears legal now (judge says it wasn't actually), you pay less tax but you carry the risk of having to repay all that money back if your "clever" scheme turns out to be illegal.

I mean ffs, if this scheme really was decreasing taxes to 3.5% from 40%, then you can't expect to take the piss and keep the money at the same time.

In any case it is crazy to actually spend this money (difference between normal tax due) rather than putting them into account just in case scheme is challenged.

In that case they should do their job properly in the first place.

[Churchill]

BTW....

Hello BBC News!!!

[AtW]

In that case they should do their job properly in the first place.

What do you mean "in the first place"? They are allowed by law X years (6?) to challenge and they did so.

[Mich the Tester]

That's common - most companies don't have full cash in hand for spending, they have to do that from cashflow, which is why a lot of them go bust if cashflow stops and there is no credit to cover for it.

In any case this is irrelevant though interesting conversation.

If the effective tax rate paid by users of this scheme was 3.5% (rather than say 35%) instead of expected 40%, then it's complete and total piss take from the very beginning.

Oh, and if you do want to continue your metaphor of a government acting like a business, would you approve of a business sending out invoices to people who they decide paid too little for their products ten years ago because the company hadn’t figured out it’s pricing policy correctly?

[Platypus]

it's hit the BBC news

A website forum for users of the Montpelier scheme contains claims from one person who says she now faces paying £300,000 in back taxes.

Looks like the beeb reads CUK too !

[AtW]

would you approve of a business sending out invoices to people who they decide paid too little for their products ten years ago because the company hadn’t figured out it’s pricing policy correctly?

If that's in the contract (law for Govt) then yes.

Did HMRC try to claim money for periods exceeding set in the law (6 years I think?)

[Mich the Tester]

If that's in the contract (law for Govt) then yes.

Did HMRC try to claim money for periods exceeding set in the law (6 years I think?)

You like big government don't you?

[Churchill]

If that's in the contract (law for Govt) then yes.

Did HMRC try to claim money for periods exceeding set in the law (6 years I think?)

You're an arse.

[AtW]

You like big government don't you?

No. I don't like 40% tax either, it's too high.

However I like even less people who pay 3.5% instead of 40% - at the very least this means other taxpayers will have to pay more or Govt would have to borrow more which in turn means even higher costs to taxpayers.

If it was 35% vs 40% I'd say this is probably legit, it certainly won't be piss take, but at 3.5% anyone involved in this scheme should have the difference in a bank for at least 10 years just in case scheme gets challenged and they lose.

[NickFitz]

BTW....

Hello BBC News!!!

"Breaking News: The BBC has discovered that the nation's entire IT infrastructure, public and private, is under the control of a bunch of contractors who spend all their time posting tulip on an Internet forum."