BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[SomeoneElse]

The level of denial from some of you staggers me (Brillo Pad in particular). Seriously guys; there is no way you will win this one - your interpretation of the right and wrong of it is irrelevant; it's now law.

It's not time to "fight back" you hopeful, simple-minded dolts - it's time to bend over,

[NotAllThere]

Laws can be struck down by JR. And something can be put into law in the UK, but violate higher law.

[BrilloPad]

The level of denial from some of you staggers me (Brillo Pad in particular). Seriously guys; there is no way you will win this one - your interpretation of the right and wrong of it is irrelevant; it's now law.

It's not time to "fight back" you hopeful, simple-minded dolts - it's time to bend over,

Why dont you bend over as you enjoy that sort of thing. I hope Mr Brannigan enjoys it (hello ) as he will be doing plenty of it if montp lose.

Who cares what I think or you think - it is what the tax experts think. The actions of HMRC are getting increasingly erratic. Why introduce BN66? Why not just go through the commissionaires? Why resort to lying and bully boy tactics?

[Douglas]

The level of denial from some of you staggers me (Brillo Pad in particular). Seriously guys; there is no way you will win this one - your interpretation of the right and wrong of it is irrelevant; it's now law.

It's not time to "fight back" you hopeful, simple-minded dolts - it's time to bend over,

I do hope you are wrong. I am no lawyer but I'm told the use of retrospective legislation is pretty clearly outlawed in the European convention and that it overrules UK law.

If the judicial review fails the whole IR35 avoidance industry will be affected. With this dangerous precedent set, subsequent budget notes might retrospectively "clarify" any aspect of the employment / self employment tests, leading to further uncertainty for all contractors.

[BrilloPad]

I do hope you are wrong. I am no lawyer but I'm told the use of retrospective legislation is pretty clearly outlawed in the European convention and that it overrules UK law.

If the judicial review fails the whole IR35 avoidance industry will be affected. With this dangerous precedent set, subsequent budget notes might retrospectively "clarify" any aspect of the employment / self employment tests, leading to further uncertainty for all contractors.

Dont worry - Mal and his PCG buddies have asked government to repeal IR35 and create a fair, open and honest tax system. So they will all be ok. problem solved.

[The Lone Gunman]

I do hope you are wrong. I am no lawyer but I'm told the use of retrospective legislation is pretty clearly outlawed in the European convention and that it overrules UK law.

If the judicial review fails the whole IR35 avoidance industry will be affected. With this dangerous precedent set, subsequent budget notes might retrospectively "clarify" any aspect of the employment / self employment tests, leading to further uncertainty for all contractors.

This isn't retrospective legislation per se. It is clarification of meaning. The IR says it was clear but some people have chosen a bizzare interpretation to create a loop hole. Obviously the users of these schemes also state their interpretation is clear and it is the IR who are perverting the meaning.
If the IR win this case then they can legitimately claim that the meaning of the legislation has been clear since its implementation and the perverse interpretation has always been just that and therefore users of these perverse schemes can be persued for all the unpaid tax they have gained.
If the IR lose then they will legislate to close the hole but that will not be retrospective.

FWIW: I see HMRC constantly creating legislation to cover loop holes creating an ever more complex tax system. Each time they introduce anti avoidance measures they complicate even more. As 1 door closes another one opens.
If they actualy set out to implement a fair and equitable tax system there would be no need for IR35 S660.........
We would all know where we stand and what we had to pay.
We wouldnt be paying HMRC half as much money to investigate schemes and avoidance measures if they got the legislation right in the first place.
The amounts they are recovring from closing schemes like this are paultry compared to the tax they have decided not to chase from non doms et al.

[BrilloPad]

This isn't retrospective legislation per se. It is clarification of meaning. The IR says it was clear but some people have chosen a bizzare interpretation to create a loop hole. Obviously the users of these schemes also state their interpretation is clear and it is the IR who are perverting the meaning.
If the IR win this case then they can legitimately claim that the meaning of the legislation has been clear since its implementation and the perverse interpretation has always been just that and therefore users of these perverse schemes can be persued for all the unpaid tax they have gained.
If the IR lose then they will legislate to close the hole but that will not be retrospective.

FWIW: I see HMRC constantly creating legislation to cover loop holes creating an ever more complex tax system. Each time they introduce anti avoidance measures they complicate even more. As 1 door closes another one opens.
If they actualy set out to implement a fair and equitable tax system there would be no need for IR35 S660.........
We would all know where we stand and what we had to pay.
We wouldnt be paying HMRC half as much money to investigate schemes and avoidance measures if they got the legislation right in the first place.
The amounts they are recovring from closing schemes like this are paultry compared to the tax they have decided not to chase from non doms et al.

It is up to the courts to clarify meaning - not government. And they do sometimes turn the law upside down - look at family courts and 1989 Children Act.

"fair and equitable tax system" - rofl. you just dont understand how the government works do you? what I dont understand is why the people put up with it. with all the grief we get there should be a mob at the gates of Downing Street.

[The Lone Gunman]

It is up to the courts to clarify meaning - not government. And they do sometimes turn the law upside down - look at family courts and 1989 Children Act..

I agree. Why dont you shut up until this thing is decided instead of insisting your interpretation is correct.

"fair and equitable tax system" - rofl. you just dont understand how the government works do you? what I dont understand is why the people put up with it. with all the grief we get there should be a mob at the gates of Downing Street.

Why so agressive? What I am suggesting is how government and tax should work. It is not a lack of understanding of how it does work.
Neither was I taking sides, I do not know the detail of this and at the moment cant be arsed to look it up, so how could I take sides.
There will never be a mob at Downing Street. The great unwashed do not care about most of this only the stuff that directly affects them. Poll tax and fuel tax being the only causes in recent years to even raise a murmer and even then only because somebody roused the rabble.

We are not all against you.

Don't be a tit all your life. Take a day off, make it today.

[malvolio]

....

If the judicial review fails the whole IR35 avoidance industry will be affected.

Quick history lesson. IR35 was challenged under ECHR rules at the time and it was ruled out of scope. Permission to lauch a JR was similarly refused as having no justifiable legal basis. The PCG and the later IR35 industry grew out of those two refusals. Personally I can't see that anything has changed over the last 10 years that would reverse them, but I would be more than happy to be proved wrong.

[The Lone Gunman]

Quick history lesson. IR35 was challenged under ECHR rules at the time and it was ruled out of scope. Permission to lauch a JR was similarly refused as having no justifiable legal basis. The PCG and the later IR35 industry grew out of those two refusals. Personally I can't see that anything has changed over the last 10 years that would reverse them, but I would be more than happy to be proved wrong.

I think the implementation of IR35 since the original JR has proven that HMRC had no intention of using it as stated. In fact IIRC the implementation has been done in such a way as to go against some of the judges findings. I seem to remember him saying that if IR35 were not implemented as stated then the JR would have gone the other way, but that may be old age and wishful thinking.