BN66 - charges and interest

[SantaClaus]

I've been silently reading this thread and had to comment.

The text from DonkeyRhubarb below is the only bit of worthwhile information I have seen in the whole thread.

I've been laughing my head off reading about people's moral tax issues/hangups. Reminds me of the childish arguments I used to have with some contractors.

If people want to pay as much of their hard-earned money as they can to HMRC so our MPs can claim even larger expenses and salaries, then so be it. If they would like to fund even more £2000 a day management consultants at the NHS, then go ahead, make my day. But dont expect me to!

What is up for discussion is whether the governments actions on retrospective taxation are legal, because according to the human rights act, they are not. So many influential and powerful people will be affected by this, that I bet they will be itching to take this to the European Court Of Human Rights.

If the UK introduces retrospective taxation, then start putting money away for the air that you breathe, in case HMRC tries to tax it at a later date.
This is just part of the general erosion of human rights that have been sneaked in by this govt, along with the 42 day detention and the ability for local councils to tap your phone.

And commenting on suggestions that Montpelier will come to some agreement with HMRC and sod the contractors, I do not agree. If they dont defend this case succesfully, any future tax schemes they invent for UK customers will always be in doubt as they will be back-taxed at a future date.

Take a look at the spreadsheet towards the end of this link. The numbers in the spreadsheet are distinct schemes ie. that have a unique reference number. The Montpelier scheme will be just one of these. As you can see, there are literally hundreds of different schemes, a few of which will be used by contractors but the majority will not. Tax avoidance is big business and many in the wealthiest 5% will be at it, including former prime ministers!!!

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/avoidance/avo...statistics.htm

I'm sure as far as the government/HMRC are concerned we are just lumped together with all the other "tax avoiders". I doubt whether they see this as having any relevance/bearing on IR35, S660 etc. In fact, I know there are a many people using the MontP scheme who have never run a Ltd Co, and have no connection whatsoever with the contractor/freelance world.

I am not convinced that what we have been doing damages "your cause". If anything the MontP scheme and all the other tax avoidance schemes should keep HMRC running around in circles for years.

If that is your only objection then I think you may be fretting over nothing.

[NotAllThere]

...If they would like to fund even more £2000 a day management consultants at the NHS, then go ahead, make my day. But dont expect me to!...

Hey - the money to pay my fees has to come from somewhere.

[ASB]

What is up for discussion is whether the governments actions on retrospective taxation are legal, because according to the human rights act, they are not.

Firstly under UK law retrospective legislation is perfectly allowed - though it is not usually done simply by convention. In terms of taxation we do in fact have retrospective legislation every year. The finance act, when passed, is backdated to the start of the tax year.

In terms of ECHR the UK government take the view that Article 1 protocol 1 does NOT imply an outright ban on retrospective taxation. There is at least 1 case to support this view. Certainty and retrospective are not mutually exclusive. The committes view can be found in here: http://www.publications.parliament.u...ts/93/9305.htm

In this particular case it seems likely that the "backdating" of this measure to 2004 (or when the original announcement was made about avoidance schemes in general) may well succeed. I would be doubtful if the backdating of it to before this time would succeed. In effect a measure can be applied from when it is announced (which is helpful or we could never pass a finance act). This still arguably gives the required certainty.

However the recent Marks and Spencer VAT case does perhaps muddy the waters a bit.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

This bit seems particularly relevant.

A retrospective provision would be one which levied the charge in respect of the benefit enjoyed in previous years. Such a tax would require very careful scrutiny for compatibility with the requirement of accessibility and foreseeability.

However, I think the government are trying to dodge the retrospection angle altogether by claiming that they are only "clarifying" the existing law as it stood in 1987. In other words, it is only the "clarification" which is retrospective and not the provision itself. They are saying that we chose to interpret the 1987 act in a way that is not valid and now they are just putting this beyond doubt.

I guess only the courts can decide whether this is reasonable or not.

[BrilloPad]

I've been silently reading this thread and had to comment.

The text from DonkeyRhubarb below is the only bit of worthwhile information I have seen in the whole thread.

I've been laughing my head off reading about people's moral tax issues/hangups. Reminds me of the childish arguments I used to have with some contractors.

If people want to pay as much of their hard-earned money as they can to HMRC so our MPs can claim even larger expenses and salaries, then so be it. If they would like to fund even more £2000 a day management consultants at the NHS, then go ahead, make my day. But dont expect me to!

What is up for discussion is whether the governments actions on retrospective taxation are legal, because according to the human rights act, they are not. So many influential and powerful people will be affected by this, that I bet they will be itching to take this to the European Court Of Human Rights.

If the UK introduces retrospective taxation, then start putting money away for the air that you breathe, in case HMRC tries to tax it at a later date.
This is just part of the general erosion of human rights that have been sneaked in by this govt, along with the 42 day detention and the ability for local councils to tap your phone.

And commenting on suggestions that Montpelier will come to some agreement with HMRC and sod the contractors, I do not agree. If they dont defend this case succesfully, any future tax schemes they invent for UK customers will always be in doubt as they will be back-taxed at a future date.

Next we will be getting posts from the ToothFairy...

[SantaClaus]

Next we will be getting posts from the ToothFairy...

either that, or a very large dentist's bill

[BrilloPad]

either that, or a very large dentist's bill

Is that after Gooner and his HMRC mates kick our teeth out?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Next we will be getting posts from the ToothFairy...

One thing is for sure SantaClaus can't be from HMRC!

[BrilloPad]

One thing is for sure SantaClaus can't be from HMRC!

Santa Claus exemption
There is an overall exemption provided by HMRC to Santa Claus. Santa incorporated his business this year to save tax. Not that he pays a lot. He has never paid VAT and gifts made by Santa are tax free (special concession by HMRC). Despite professional advice he continues to pay all the fairies “cash in hand”. Even worse, no regard is made to the Working Time Directive, money laundering or minimum wage legislation. He blatantly ignores the health and safety issues when working on those roofs and has scant regard for speed limits. Some businesses get all the luck. Happy Christmas from all at Campbell Dallas.

http://www.businessperthshiremagazin...out_giving.htm

[SantaClaus]

Santa Claus exemption
There is an overall exemption provided by HMRC to Santa Claus. Santa incorporated his business this year to save tax. Not that he pays a lot. He has never paid VAT and gifts made by Santa are tax free (special concession by HMRC). Despite professional advice he continues to pay all the fairies “cash in hand”. Even worse, no regard is made to the Working Time Directive, money laundering or minimum wage legislation. He blatantly ignores the health and safety issues when working on those roofs and has scant regard for speed limits. Some businesses get all the luck. Happy Christmas from all at Campbell Dallas.

http://www.businessperthshiremagazin...out_giving.htm

If those blasted fairies wont work for free, I'm going to have to do an Alan Sugar. You're fired!