BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[BrilloPad]

Ive heard a few powerful people are in bed with the consultancy heads who obvioulsy cant stand freelancers as we get in the way of their lucrative graduate placements charging £800 per day and paying perm salaries of £30k...IR35 was apparently encouraged by some top knob consultants in discussions with the government

these consultancy heads being the big 4 accountants who advised clients to go the same route as montpelier then left them to dangle in the breeze when the government threatened them?

hmmmmmmmmmmm

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I certainly think that any attempt to publicise our cause is likely to do more harm than good and now that the Finance Bill has been passed don't really see what good writing to various MP's will do.

I agree with you about avoiding publicity but I don't see it does any harm writing to MPs.

When the Government sneaked this legislation through they were very vague about the scope of the retrospection. They made reference to property developers but didn't mention that we were the real target. I think if they'd said "HMRC are going to use this to collect tax & interest off hundreds of freelancer workers from 7 years ago" they might have got a rougher ride.

With the benefit of hindsight, I think we missed an opportunity at the time. If everyone in the scheme who was going to be ruined by this had written to their MP and said if you approve this legislation my family will be bankrupted, then it might have got closer scrutiny.

[smalldog]

I agree with you about avoiding publicity but I don't see it does any harm writing to MPs.

When the Government sneaked this legislation through they were very vague about the scope of the retrospection. They made reference to property developers but didn't mention that we were the real target. I think if they'd said "HMRC are going to use this to collect tax & interest off hundreds of freelancer workers from 7 years ago" they might have got a rougher ride.

With the benefit of hindsight, I think we missed an opportunity at the time. If everyone in the scheme who was going to be ruined by this had written to their MP and said if you approve this legislation my family will be bankrupted, then it might have got closer scrutiny.

I agree, by implication using the term property developers = fat cats, which in a lot of peoples minds are people with millions sloshing away and ripe for picking. Not people who could lose everything...By implementing the collection of this money they will be negating what they are trying to do. OK they might be able to improve lives for some people with more coffers to go round, but the flip side being they will also ruin some peoples lives. How much will they actually collect, 20% (£40m)? Pretty much everyone seems to be bugga'd somehow. I suspect a lot of the cash will get spent on legal defense of this case, bureacracy etc....How much will actually filter down to the general public and make a difference? Does that really make it a gain for the public interest? I doubt it, after all we are also the public...

If HMRC are acting in the public interest, they should assess how much money:

- A) All this is costing in admin etc
- B) how much their legal fees are likely to be
- C) percentage of monies they expect to recover
- Now add A & B together and deduct C

Now take that balance and work out how many people will be claiming dole money, put into council rented accommodation after being bankrupted etc. Bearing in mind of course if you bankrupt contractors we cant run our Ltd companies either, as we cant be directors, so you are cutting off our blood supply and subsequent corp tax, VAT and income tax.

If after all those sums HMRC are better off purely on a cost basis then crack on, as its in the public interest. That doesnt take into account any collateral damage caused by family breakdowns etc. I for one cant believe it would be worth it....

[Emigre]

Just sent that email... few errors:
Jane Kennedy's new email address is: Jane.Kennedy@defra.gsi.gov.uk

Gordon Brown's inbox is full!:
Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.

Subject: Clause 55 / Budget Note 66
Sent: 24/11/2008 13:18

The following recipient(s) cannot be reached:

[email protected] on 24/11/2008 13:18
The message could not be delivered because the recipient's mailbox is full.
<HP3K13M.parliament.uk #5.2.2>

How to contact Gordon Brown, entertaining if not practical. Can clearly see No 10's loathing of contractors started years ago

http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives...rdon_brown.asp

[smalldog]

How to contact Gordon Brown, entertaining if not practical. Can clearly see No 10's loathing of contractors started years ago

http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives...rdon_brown.asp

petition anyone??

[Emigre]

If HMRC are acting in the public interest, they should assess how much money:

- A) All this is costing in admin etc
- B) how much their legal fees are likely to be
- C) percentage of monies they expect to recover
- Now add A & B together and deduct C

These things don't matter to them. Take IR35. Approximately 2000 cases of which they won less than 10. At say £50k per case (very conservative) total costs are £100m. Recoveries from 10 successes? Probably less than their costs for each case.

When asked about the enforcement costs of IR35 Dawn Primarolo stated that HMRC did not keep records that could provide that information. The same was true for Arctic Systems.

[smalldog]

These things don't matter to them. Take IR35. Approximately 2000 cases of which they won less than 10. At say £50k per case (very conservative) total costs are £100m. Recoveries from 10 successes? Probably less than their costs for each case.

When asked about the enforcement costs of IR35 Dawn Primarolo stated that HMRC did not keep records that could provide that information. The same was true for Arctic Systems.

I know, and they bloody well should, its public money they are wasting and they should be held to account for it, its a travesty, thats no way to run any kind of organisation, government or otherwise. Bottom line is what its all about, period. There is a clue about what their priorities should be in their name "Revenue". After all the more money they have in the bank, the better place we will all live in. Unfortunately, as with a lot of big organisations, logic goes out the window, its just pick up the manual without question and get on with it. Nobody takes a second look and actually asks "is this manual really right or do we need a rethink".

[ContractIn]

Perhaps the MP's office are not very computer literate.

I would try sending a letter in the post.

Good point and Raticans! I forgot that there were other methods of contact! Been in this matrix for too long!

01010100011010000110000101101110011010110010000001 1110010110111101110101

[helen7]

For those on any of the various loans schemes out there, this may be of interest from the budget:-

5.102 The Government can announce its intention to amend the Change of Accounting
Practice (COAP) Regulations dealing with the taxation of loans and derivatives. This will
prevent future double taxation or double relief under the COAP Regulations with regard to
foreign exchange gains or losses on certain foreign currency denominated financial
instruments. This measure will apply with effect from 1 January 2009. The Government will
publish draft legislation shortly.

No fair! Why don't they get retrospective changes!!

Odd that they mention other avoidance schemes they have closed down this year, but not the 'retrospective' one.

[dezze]

For those on any of the various loans schemes out there, this may be of interest from the budget:-

5.102 The Government can announce its intention to amend the Change of Accounting
Practice (COAP) Regulations dealing with the taxation of loans and derivatives. This will
prevent future double taxation or double relief under the COAP Regulations with regard to
foreign exchange gains or losses on certain foreign currency denominated financial
instruments. This measure will apply with effect from 1 January 2009. The Government will
publish draft legislation shortly.

No fair! Why don't they get retrospective changes!!

Odd that they mention other avoidance schemes they have closed down this year, but not the 'retrospective' one.

Forgive my financial ignorance, but does this cover the various loan schemes that use depreciating currency to reduce the loan amount?