BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[BolshieBastard]

Yes so it should be technically possible to put everything in your wife's name and have HMRC declare you bankrupt. I can't believe that transfers of wealth between spouses is limited to some kind of "gift" allowance... that would be ridiculous. For example, as part of simple tax planning I put nearly all my savings in my wife's account... because she is a lower rate tax payer. Now is that not allowed unless we pay additional so called "gift" tax... I wouldn't imagine so.

I've known well heeled businessmen who dilberately went bankrupt to avoid paying debts, and a few months later started the same business in their wife's name.

Anyway, it's just an idea that might be worth considering.

There are certain rulings in case law won by HMRC and other Gov Depts that mean if you deliberately 'give away' your assets to avoid taxation, tax charges or even so you have entitlement to benefits (heaven forbid), that the relevant Gov dept (HMRC or DWP) can take into account the money you have given away as still being in your possession and use them to undertake an assessment on you.

So yes, it is 'technically' possible to give away your money, even to your wife and, for the relevant Gov Dept to assess you based on the premise that you still hold those monies. Whether they would go for 'gift' tax penalties or, a general reassessment of your tax liability would presumably be done to a, which is likely to result in a greater tax take for HMRC and b, down to the individual tax inspector.

[BolshieBastard]

PS. I just checked my original notes and MontP committed to covering all costs up to HoL but obviously at the time they were not expecting it to involve Europe.

That suggests to me that's as far as they'll go without contributions from members \ former members ie if it goes to Europe, there's a decision to be made to contribute or drop out.

[poppy01]

That suggests to me that's as far as they'll go without contributions from members \ former members ie if it goes to Europe, there's a decision to be made to contribute or drop out.

my understanding, which is probably wrong, is that the Judicial Review route MP are taking necessarily involves the ECHR, since the JR can only find BN66 'incompatible' with the 98 act, they cant strike it out. The next step has to be Europe doesnt it? perhaps Mal can advise. and I mean that most sincerely.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

That suggests to me that's as far as they'll go without contributions from members \ former members ie if it goes to Europe, there's a decision to be made to contribute or drop out.

I will contact MontP and see if I can clarify this.

[akan]

I've went through the thread again - but can't find the rough calc guides to potential liabilities. Can someone post a link please? (or was I dreaming?). I have four years worth of potential liability and preparing a CTD. Whats the approximate calc for this? Would it be aout 50% of the total income for the year or some other percentage of the trust income only?

Thanks in advance.

[BrilloPad]

I've went through the thread again - but can't find the rough calc guides to potential liabilities. Can someone post a link please? (or was I dreaming?). I have four years worth of potential liability and preparing a CTD. Whats the approximate calc for this? Would it be aout 50% of the total income for the year or some other percentage of the trust income only?

Thanks in advance.

rough guess is 33% of trust income. montp can work out something more exact if you ask them.

[BrilloPad]

Direct Action (if French fisherman can blockade ports, and lorry drivers can block motorways, there is plenty we can do).

We don’t have to put up with this sh**.

Well done for standing up to be counted. We need more like you.

If this thing goes tits up (unlikely but...) then Mr Brannigan (hello ) is going to regret it big time.

[BolshieBastard]

rough guess is 33% of trust income. montp can work out something more exact if you ask them.

Im hanging fire until I get the closure notice as I dont know my liability. That said, if the closure notice doesnt arrive in September, I'll have to take out a CTD for an aprroximation of the liability not including the interest.

I take it no one has got a closure notice that was expected sometime this month?

[akan]

rough guess is 33% of trust income. montp can work out something more exact if you ask them.

I've asked and waiting (Tony Quinn?). 33% is a bit low I would have thought if they are going to sting you on the 40% tax band (a bit of your lower band will mitigate this) and the two lots of NI? I am prepping for a CTD as the notice has not turned up.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I've asked and waiting (Tony Quinn?). 33% is a bit low I would have thought if they are going to sting you on the 40% tax band (a bit of your lower band will mitigate this) and the two lots of NI? I am prepping for a CTD as the notice has not turned up.

In my case, the tax liability (excluding interest) worked out at about 1/3rd of the trust income. The extra NI doesn't amount to much and you will have already paid tax on the self-employed income.

The amount of interest due depends on how long you have been in the scheme. I was in 2001/2/3 and mine works out about 1.32*tax. So my total liability is about 43% of the trust income BUT you only need to take out a CTD to cover the tax liability (ie. the 1/3rd).

If you can't wait for the assessment/closure notice from Hector, then depositing an amount equal to 1/3rd of the total trust income should stop the bulk of any further interest penalties.