No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

Slept on it and decided to Vote YES ... spoke to elpinar last night (nice to chat to you ) ... we have similar paths since MTM ..but differ in next steps.

Worried tho I am about COP 9 ... britspud is quite right ...it would be a pain to get investigated and they might query a few items here and there (and point IR35 fingers etc) ....and generally make it awkward for me but will just have to suck it up.

[Britspud]

How much money do the govt. want to spend - and risk, to recover the money they believe, if not in law then morally, they're owed. It's getting to a point where it's got to be collected simply to justify the investment, if not the term in office. It's a belly-up stock HM. Make a deal and cut the losses. Vin devis, ce soir

"...if men make war in slavish obedience to rules, they will fail." - Ulysses S. Grant

So what is the distinction between tax fraud and evasion? For me it's quite clear...fraud is an act of dishonesty to make a financial gain, and will probably be VAT related in most cases (e.g. submitting false claims). Evasion is not declaring/hiding income. We are being targeted under Anti-Avoidance legislation, which shows clearly that HMRC knows that neither of those apply to us.

[elpinar]

who is the third No

Slept on it and decided to Vote YES ... spoke to elpinar last night (nice to chat to you ) ... we have similar paths since MTM ..but differ in next steps.

Worried tho I am about COP 9 ... britspud is quite right ...it would be a pain to get investigated and they might query a few items here and there (and point IR35 fingers etc) ....and generally make it awkward for me but will just have to suck it up.

Third no come forward - me , runningman and .......

CPBWRN, nice to chat to you too.

I have re read the CCW stuff on the train - and do not understand, as the opinion states that the IOM contract was the only one with a right of sub. I have a copy of the contract MRG signed with the place i worked - there is a clear clause of right of sub ....... . or is it saying the only one we were in immediate control of is the one with the IOM rather than that it could not be passed down the line? If so isnt that always the way when you have an agency between a ltd co and the end client?

SO im now confused

[MishiMoo]

Third no come forward - me , runningman and .......

CPBWRN, nice to chat to you too.

I have re read the CCW stuff on the train - and do not understand, as the opinion states that the IOM contrcat was the only one with a right of sub. I have a copy of the contract MRG signed with the place i worked - there is a clear clause of right of sub ....... .

SO im now also confused

I think that we're crazy to put all these details up on this site. If we're all off to court soon then our strategy, and fears, and hopes should all be private. When we sign up to take part at the FTT can we please, PLEASE establish a private forum to discuss matters relating to the case?

Thanks!

[Britspud]

[QUOTE=elpinar;2089569]Third no come forward - me , runningman and .......

CPBWRN, nice to chat to you too.

<DELETED>

[mrkitchen]

Agree with Mishimoo, this should be discussed on a closed forum

[elpinar]

our strategy, and fears, and hopes should all be private.
Thanks!

sadly think we are long past that - a meeting was already had with HMRC to discuss this- in fact i do beleive that letter was produced for them to explain the argument? so not splilling any beans

and so what.. .they can see that 3 out of 100 disagree ..... how is that harmful ?

[OnYourBikeGB]

sadly think we are long past that - a meeting was already had with HMRC to discuss this- in fact i do beleive that letter was produced for them to explain the argument? so not splilling any beans

and so what.. .they can see that 3 out of 100 disagree ..... how is that harmful ?

Because we are going to court. Anything said on this forum that could be be used by HMRC will be added to, exaggerated and twisted. You may not want to go to court, and that's fine, it is your decision. Others have made a different choice, and as has been said elsewhere, if these points are going to be raised, I think it should be in a closed forum if one can be achieved or not at all.

Incidentally, on a more general point, HMRC haven't mentioned COP 9. That was just us. It might happen, it might not, but we're all discussing it as if it is some kind of certainty. Let's see how this plays out.

[elpinar]

Because we are going to court. Anything said on this forum that could be be used by HMRC will be added to, exaggerated and twisted. You may not want to go to court, and that's fine, it is your decision. Others have made a different choice, and as has been said elsewhere, if these points are going to be raised, I think it should be in a closed forum if one can be achieved or not at all.

Incidentally, on a more general point, HMRC haven't mentioned COP 9. That was just us. It might happen, it might not, but we're all discussing it as if it is some kind of certainty. Let's see how this plays out.

Understood and beleive me i would not do anythign tha i thought would hurt the case

[MishiMoo]

sadly think we are long past that - a meeting was already had with HMRC to discuss this- in fact i do beleive that letter was produced for them to explain the argument? so not splilling any beans

and so what.. .they can see that 3 out of 100 disagree ..... how is that harmful ?

It's not just the survey results, or the general discussions about the situation we're in, individual experiences, who to contact about what, or our opinions about HMRC. That's all fine.

However I think that as it gets closer to the court hearing, or even right now, before we've prepared ourselves for it, any little thing that we let slip which might help them must be avoided at all costs. This is of course pretty standard practice in the legal world. Let's wrong foot 'em!

Mish.