BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[taxman_lacky]

I think we may be a bit harsh on HMRC. For instance they are obviously Led Zeppelin fans, as the content of their letters have obviously drawn inspiration from 'When the Levee Breaks' and can neatly be summed up in the song in the line:
"Crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good "

I also think we all know who should play Alan B in the 'BN66:The Movie'

http://www.musicweb-international.co.../brannigan.jpg

[BrilloPad]

I think we may be a bit harsh on HMRC. For instance they are obviously Led Zeppelin fans, as the content of their letters have obviously drawn inspiration from 'When the Levee Breaks' and can neatly be summed up in the song in the line:
"Crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good "

I also think we all know who should play Alan B in the 'BN66:The Movie'

http://www.musicweb-international.co.../brannigan.jpg

of course it would mean digging him up first.

I think he should be played by the Alien in the eponymous movie.

[silver_lining]

anything official out yet from MP to its the lambs?

i.e. course of action, if any.... or simply join the queue to the Brannigan Abattoir

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Shout99 Article

http://www.shout99.com/contractors/s...le.pl?id=52716

The following quote from John Brazier, Managing Director of the PCG, says it all really.

"We do not like the retrospection of this measure, however: the Government claims to be "clarifying" legislation passed in 1987 so that it works as intended. But if this is necessary, it cannot have worked like that up to now: so in reality they are introducing a new item of law with retrospective effect.

"This is a dangerous principle and the Government ought not to be setting such a reckless precedent. We want to see a fair treatment from the Government for freelancers who are in business on their own account and seek to meet their lawful tax obligations accordingly - retrospection has no place in such an arrangement."

[malvolio]

http://www.shout99.com/contractors/s...le.pl?id=52716

The following quote from John Brazier, Managing Director of the PCG, says it all really.

"We do not like the retrospection of this measure, however: the Government claims to be "clarifying" legislation passed in 1987 so that it works as intended. But if this is necessary, it cannot have worked like that up to now: so in reality they are introducing a new item of law with retrospective effect.

"This is a dangerous principle and the Government ought not to be setting such a reckless precedent. We want to see a fair treatment from the Government for freelancers who are in business on their own account and seek to meet their lawful tax obligations accordingly - retrospection has no place in such an arrangement."

But read the whole quote; note that he doesn't support your position, merely the opposition to the retrospection. And that is more to do with the campaign for a Duty of Care to be applied to HMRC. He's having to walk a fairly fine line with regards to BN66...

[BrilloPad]

But read the whole quote; note that he doesn't support your position, merely the opposition to the retrospection. And that is more to do with the campaign for a Duty of Care to be applied to HMRC. He's having to walk a fairly fine line with regards to BN66...

Mal - is that your most stupid post ever? montp had 4 cases to go before commissioners - hmrc knew they would lose so introduced retrospective legislation.

Remove the retrospectiveness and montp will win. You know it, I know it, montp knows it and Mr Branninigan knows it (BTW hello Mr B. ).

And I still reckon montp will win the judicial review on retrospectiveness - eventually.

I thought you were leaving this thread by popular request? I was sorry to see you go - any more posts like that and I might change my mind.

[smalldog]

I dont care if he supports our position or not. There is a point of law here that he and we and Montp think is wrong....

Of course he is treading a fine line for political reasons, he doesnt want to Piss HMRC off too much...he's got an interest to keep em sweet...

MAl, you seem and continue to be unable to be objective about this issue. It doesnt matter what arguments you hear you just want us sent down for your own reasons.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I dont care if he supports our position or not. There is a point of law here that he and we and Montp think is wrong....

Of course he is treading a fine line for political reasons, he doesnt want to Piss HMRC off too much...he's got an interest to keep em sweet...

MAl, you seem and continue to be unable to be objective about this issue. It doesnt matter what arguments you hear you just want us sent down for your own reasons.

I thought the PCG quote might attract a Malicious comment.

[malvolio]

Jeez, just listen to yourselves. Take a look out of the window...

Many people - and I have said before that I am not one of them - do not understand other people who think they can work here, get paid here and not pay taxes here. Don't shoot the f***ing messenger.

The illegality of the tax law "change" and your perceived position as tax-evading scumbags in the eyes of the many* are not mutually inclusive.



* including, may I add, quite a few PCG members when I floated the idea over there of supporting your cause...

[DaveB]

The PCG's view point, if you read the whole statement is that they disagree with the principle of using "clarification" as a back door to retrospective legislation. I agree with them on this.

This does not mean that by extension they support your position in this particular dispute as can be seen in the opening paragraph. I agree with them on this as well.

"...PCG has always clearly advised that, where tax is concerned, if something seems too good to be true it usually is, and that aggressive schemes like this are best avoided. We are not surprised that the Government has turned its attention to them, and given that they flout the spirit of the law so blatantly we feel the Government is right to do so...."