BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[BrilloPad]

Oops....

FWIW I am really really pleased you decided to stay. You have made some great points and made peoople think.

And if I eventually lose I will console myself with the fact that you will be happy!

[normalbloke]

We formed a union about 10 years ago. You're welcome to join.

OK, once last go at explaining reality, and for once I don't give a flying f*** how you feel about it:

There is a conception in HMG that freelance IT workers are only working the way they do to avoid tax. We aren't, we are required to work that way because of extant legislation. We don't pay any more tax than absolutely necessary - why should we? - but we do pay what is legally required. What is more, some of us are working to get that position recognised, on behalf of the roughly 1.5 million small businesses affected by HMG's war on the freelance sector.

Then we have a couple of thousand arrogant twats who think that by using some obscure and dubious (and now demonstrably incorrect) interpretation of two lines of badly written legislation, they need not pay any UK tax at all on 95% of their UK income. What's worse, they think they are so right they should challenge HMG through the courts to protect their patently ridiculous position.

Well here's the truth. You are cheating everyone else and you're damaging our own case quite severely but are too selfish to realise it. AFAIC you deserve all you get. Enjoy the rest of this thread and your futile legal challenge. I'm staying out of it in case I say something I actually regret.

"Then we have a couple of thousand arrogant twats ".....
Grow up, get real and stick to the playground (or PGC forums) for name-calling please. Plus there's more like 2 or 3 million "arrogant twats" who legally exploit badly worded legislation to minimise their tax bill. Whine at the Government legislatures, not us.

"their patently ridiculous position..." We'll let the law courts decide that shall we? Can't be that ridiculous else, HMRC would have taken us to court years ago.

and as for "We don't pay any more tax than absolutely necessary - why should we? - but we do pay what is legally required"... this is exactly what this thread discusses.. whats "legally required" and what isn't. Its not for you or I to decide what's legally required - that's the courts decision. People like you decide to confuse legality with morality when it suits them. Lets stick to legality - other threads discuss morality. And your opinion means Jack in a law court, in this thread and to me.

[smalldog]

But you do. That's the point.

in your opinion remember, that hasnt been proven...good grief the arrogance is quite astonishing...

[BrilloPad]

in your opinion remember, that hasnt been proven...good grief the arrogance is quite astonishing...

Lets just hope Mal is not the judge hearing the JR!

[smalldog]

interesting, yet another tax would have had retrosepctive implications that the treasury have now had a rethink and changed....There seems to be a theme here....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ox/7429030.stm

[BrilloPad]

interesting, yet another tax would have had retrosepctive implications that the treasury have now had a rethink and changed....There seems to be a theme here....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ox/7429030.stm

very very interesting.

"But campaigners pointed out that meant up to 420,000 people would get a tax bill of up to £300 on income they were used to receiving tax-free. "

I wish it said who these campaigners were! Is it age concern? I am interested in how they went about getting this decision.

[redkieran]

Can we please leave the moral debate out of this? That is probably better discussed in the pub over a few beers...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I wish it said who these campaigners were! Is it age concern? I am interested in how they went about getting this decision.

John Whiting certainly gets around. He is the guy from PwC who gave evidence to the Treasury Committee. PwC are acting on behalf of clients (property developers?) who are also affected by BN66/Clause 55.

[BrilloPad]

I wish it said who these campaigners were! Is it age concern? I am interested in how they went about getting this decision.

John Whiting certainly gets around. He is the guy from PwC who gave evidence to the Treasury Committee. PwC are acting on behalf of clients (property developers?) who are also affected by BN66/Clause 55.

"John Whiting, an accountant and member of the Low Incomes Tax reform group"

The low incomes bit means he will probably not be doing the PWC bn66 stuff I guess?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

"John Whiting, an accountant and member of the Low Incomes Tax reform group"

The low incomes bit means he will probably not be doing the PWC bn66 stuff I guess?

I think he is still overseeing it, although the case is being managed on a day to day basis by someone else at PwC.