BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[SantaClaus]

Ok, I'm going to attempt to bring this thread back on topic.

Anyone reading this forum would think that the Inland Revenue are a super efficient well oiled machine. You've only got to read the tax credits fiasco in the Sunday Times this morning to realise they are as incompetent as every other govt. department.

The revenue have always been good at writing threatening letters, hey its just a standard template in word . But we need to ask ourselves do this organisation who couldnt organise a p!ssup in a brewery have the manpower, intelligence and efficiency to make BN66 stick? I dont think so. Will they be able to argue their way through the European Court Of Human Rights? I doubt it.

Therefore, when a threatening letter arrives on my doormat, I will not be panicked into buying a CTD or making any payments. I will not be harrased by threats of penalties. I am simply going to wait for Montpelier to prepare their case and watch them tear apart the Revenue's feeble arguments in court.

I think we should all put a bit more trust in Montpelier and let them get on with the task of preparing a case. Ok, their communication hasnt been great, but if you were preparing a case against the IR, would you plaster all over the internet for all to see?

[TheGadgetMan]

[Originally Posted by TheGadgetMan
I received a copy of my Partnership Accounts yesterday...apparently they've already been filed so its too late to check they are correct...will let you know what I think....

QUOTE=BrilloPad;590539]Where did you hear that?

I just asked - no accounts have been filed yet!

check away and get back to us/mp....[/QUOTE]

Ok, so Ive gone thru my 3 years of Partnership Accounts...these are the ones being submitted to MrB by MP on my behalf...

(NB sounds like mixed messages coming out of MP...Ive been told that my accounts have already been submitted...BrilloPad has been told by MP that no accounts have been submitted yet...left hand not knowing what right hand is doing, perhaps?)

...anyway, the figures look good...Year 1 and Year 3 exactly match my Self Assessment for those years...Year 2 is about 3k out...but I'm pretty sure that is an Accounting issue that MP will be able to explain to me when i query tomorrow...

anyway, a quick calc tells me that there is about 45K at stake, not including interest...but I aint giving it up without a fight...if its appropriate, I'll get a CTD...

but I'm not going to allow myself to be freaked by your letter earlier this week MrB ...

[BrilloPad]

Ok, I'm going to attempt to bring this thread back on topic.

Anyone reading this forum would think that the Inland Revenue are a super efficient well oiled machine. You've only got to read the tax credits fiasco in the Sunday Times this morning to realise they are as incompetent as every other govt. department.

The revenue have always been good at writing threatening letters, hey its just a standard template in word . But we need to ask ourselves do this organisation who couldnt organise a p!ssup in a brewery have the manpower, intelligence and efficiency to make BN66 stick? I dont think so. Will they be able to argue their way through the European Court Of Human Rights? I doubt it.

Therefore, when a threatening letter arrives on my doormat, I will not be panicked into buying a CTD or making any payments. I will not be harrased by threats of penalties. I am simply going to wait for Montpelier to prepare their case and watch them tear apart the Revenue's feeble arguments in court.

I think we should all put a bit more trust in Montpelier and let them get on with the task of preparing a case. Ok, their communication hasnt been great, but if you were preparing a case against the IR, would you plaster all over the internet for all to see?

[BrilloPad]

[Originally Posted by TheGadgetMan
I received a copy of my Partnership Accounts yesterday...apparently they've already been filed so its too late to check they are correct...will let you know what I think....

QUOTE=BrilloPad;590539]Where did you hear that?

I just asked - no accounts have been filed yet!

check away and get back to us/mp....

Ok, so Ive gone thru my 3 years of Partnership Accounts...these are the ones being submitted to MrB by MP on my behalf...

(NB sounds like mixed messages coming out of MP...Ive been told that my accounts have already been submitted...BrilloPad has been told by MP that no accounts have been submitted yet...left hand not knowing what right hand is doing, perhaps?)

...anyway, the figures look good...Year 1 and Year 3 exactly match my Self Assessment for those years...Year 2 is about 3k out...but I'm pretty sure that is an Accounting issue that MP will be able to explain to me when i query tomorrow...

anyway, a quick calc tells me that there is about 45K at stake, not including interest...but I aint giving it up without a fight...if its appropriate, I'll get a CTD...

but I'm not going to allow myself to be freaked by your letter earlier this week MrB ...[/QUOTE]

I will PM/email you - I am very interested as to who at montp told you...

[BolshieBastard]

Ok, I'm going to attempt to bring this thread back on topic.

Anyone reading this forum would think that the Inland Revenue are a super efficient well oiled machine. You've only got to read the tax credits fiasco in the Sunday Times this morning to realise they are as incompetent as every other govt. department.

The revenue have always been good at writing threatening letters, hey its just a standard template in word . But we need to ask ourselves do this organisation who couldnt organise a p!ssup in a brewery have the manpower, intelligence and efficiency to make BN66 stick? I dont think so. Will they be able to argue their way through the European Court Of Human Rights? I doubt it.

Therefore, when a threatening letter arrives on my doormat, I will not be panicked into buying a CTD or making any payments. I will not be harrased by threats of penalties. I am simply going to wait for Montpelier to prepare their case and watch them tear apart the Revenue's feeble arguments in court.

I think we should all put a bit more trust in Montpelier and let them get on with the task of preparing a case. Ok, their communication hasnt been great, but if you were preparing a case against the IR, would you plaster all over the internet for all to see?

That's fair enough but its also ignoring the powers of government. Look at the Artic case. They went to the courts over S660 and lost. So what did they do? They signalled their intent to change the legislation.

OK, that has been 'postponed' for the time being while there's consulation.

Now look at the MP scheme. As I said in my very first post on the subject, they (HMRC \ HMG) either knew they had no better than a 50 \ 50 chance of winning in the courts or they'd change the legislation. And guess what, they've changed the legislation.

Im not too familiar with the powers of a Judicial Review and I remain to be convinced what good it will do. Even if the JR goes against HMRC I dont see how the courts can take precedent over Budget Finance (which let's be honest, even the House of Lords cant amend).

I also fail to see what the Human Rights Act has to do with this topic. OK, it could say the government acting wrongly but again, I dont see how that has any impact on Budget Finance.

[smalldog]

That's fair enough but its also ignoring the powers of government. Look at the Artic case. They went to the courts over S660 and lost. So what did they do? They signalled their intent to change the legislation.

OK, that has been 'postponed' for the time being while there's consulation.

Now look at the MP scheme. As I said in my very first post on the subject, they (HMRC \ HMG) either knew they had no better than a 50 \ 50 chance of winning in the courts or they'd change the legislation. And guess what, they've changed the legislation.

Im not too familiar with the powers of a Judicial Review and I remain to be convinced what good it will do. Even if the JR goes against HMRC I dont see how the courts can take precedent over Budget Finance (which let's be honest, even the House of Lords cant amend).

I also fail to see what the Human Rights Act has to do with this topic. OK, it could say the government acting wrongly but again, I dont see how that has any impact on Budget Finance.

apparently it is very difficult for a UK court to over rule whats considered "the will of parliament" but the european court wouldnt have an issue.

[BolshieBastard]

apparently it is very difficult for a UK court to over rule whats considered "the will of parliament" but the european court wouldnt have an issue.

Not on the subject of Budget Finance ie a Financial Bill before Parliament as far as Im aware.

[silver_lining]

Ok, so Ive gone thru my 3 years of Partnership Accounts...these are the ones being submitted to MrB by MP on my behalf...

(NB sounds like mixed messages coming out of MP...Ive been told that my accounts have already been submitted...BrilloPad has been told by MP that no accounts have been submitted yet...left hand not knowing what right hand is doing, perhaps?)

...anyway, the figures look good...Year 1 and Year 3 exactly match my Self Assessment for those years...Year 2 is about 3k out...but I'm pretty sure that is an Accounting issue that MP will be able to explain to me when i query tomorrow...

anyway, a quick calc tells me that there is about 45K at stake, not including interest...but I aint giving it up without a fight...if its appropriate, I'll get a CTD...

but I'm not going to allow myself to be freaked by your letter earlier this week MrB ...

I will PM/email you - I am very interested as to who at montp told you...[/QUOTE]

Brillo, 3 years and only 45K, how did you manage that? thats sounds low unless you were paid high salary and low daily rate?

Incidently, I had assumed its basically 40% on Profits from trust excluding any additional charges from IR?

[SantaClaus]

...
I also fail to see what the Human Rights Act has to do with this topic. OK, it could say the government acting wrongly but again, I dont see how that has any impact on Budget Finance.

Bolshie,

Retrospective taxation is against European Human Rights law, that is the very crux of what is wrong here.

Here's a case where Marks and Spencer won against Mr Brannigan in the European Court of Justice ...
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3724459.ece

Looks like the IR cant even get it right when it comes to teacakes

[Turfer]

Partnership Accounts

Ok, so Ive gone thru my 3 years of Partnership Accounts...these are the ones being submitted to MrB by MP on my behalf...

...anyway, the figures look good...Year 1 and Year 3 exactly match my Self Assessment for those years...Year 2 is about 3k out...but I'm pretty sure that is an Accounting issue that MP will be able to explain to me when i query tomorrow...

I see lots of talk about these partnership accounts on the board and I think it is important to point out that there is a difference between cash received and what should appear in the partnership accounts.

Partnership accounts should be worked out on an accruals basis, not a cash in hand basis. For example if the partnership accounts cover a period that ends on the 31 March and the partnership raised an invoice for services during March, but that invoice wasn't paid or even raised until after the 31 March the amount of the invoice would still rightly belong in the accounts for that period. Who knows how accurately the periods will be split, but the same would apply if you worked a week that was split between two accounting periods in which case it should be apportioned.

It is the case however that if you add up all the amounts you received and all the partnership accounts over the years you should end up with something that is right, but you probably won't be able to do that until you have ceased to operate in this way as you will always have some accounts you are still waiting for.

The self-assessment returns should have been completed on the same basis as you were beneficially entitled to the trust's income as it arises (not when it is distributed) and the trust's income is the underlying profits of the partnership.