BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[BrilloPad]

Anyone got an email from John Cuddy?

I have already written to my MP : I hope everyone else does!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Anyone got an email from John Cuddy?

I have already written to my MP : I hope everyone else does!

Actually, I think it was from his sister Joan and she is a bit more Cuddly than him!

[BrilloPad]

Actually, I think it was from his sister Joan and she is a bit more Cuddly than him!

Ahh! Getting the whole family to encourage us to write to their MP eh! It clearly is a worthwhile cause.

[Toocan]

Actually, I think it was from his sister Joan and she is a bit more Cuddly than him!

I got one of those too - I hope Joan's brother has a good sence of humour!

I see that Jacqui Smith - or should that be Jacqui "Loophole" Smith has claimed more than £116,000 using a "loophole" in the law. I wonder if that will be closed down retrospectively.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7878993.stm

[TykeMerc]

I got one of those too - I hope Joan's brother has a good sence of humour!

I see that Jacqui Smith - or should that be Jacqui "Loophole" Smith has claimed more than £116,000 using a "loophole" in the law. I wonder if that will be closed down retrospectively.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7878993.stm

One can only hope so as hundreds of thousands of people who work away from home can't claim even close similar expenses against tax let alone have them fully paid out of the public purse.

It's a total scandal and doesn't even begin to bear any similarity to the words "fair", "equitable" or "reasonable". If any of us even attempted to offset part of what they claim we would be in jail for tax evasion.

[Squicker]

Yes, its been debated here before ... see post 772 (of a previous BN66 thread.... "BN66 - Time to fight back!!" onwards..... but basically don't go anywhere near it was the conclusion.....

Is this in the 'part 3' thread or the original, can't seem to locate it at post 772?

[Emigre]

One can only hope so as hundreds of thousands of people who work away from home can't claim even close similar expenses against tax let alone have them fully paid out of the public purse.

It's a total scandal and doesn't even begin to bear any similarity to the words "fair", "equitable" or "reasonable". If any of us even attempted to offset part of what they claim we would be in jail for tax evasion.

Now I'm not a supporter of this or indeed of the typical costs of an MP but...

Firstly, she is an employee. As an employee her employer can set what ever allowances they believe appropriate. We should not assume that just because she gets these amounts paid that they are tax deductible. That is different.

They are allowed up to approx £2k/month for accomodation costs. She could stay in a hotel that would cost more than that. The real issue here is that there appears to be no obvious relationship between actual costs and expenses claimed. As such it appears she is defrauding her employer, the State, and hence the taxpayer. One would hope that HMRC asks to see valid receipts for all claims. One would also hope that if mortgage interest is being claimed on the second home that the second home is actually being treated as such for CGT... But then I'm sure she enjoys a rather more cosy relationship with HMRC than is afforded to us.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

bn66.co.uk (Warr & Co)

Is this in the 'part 3' thread or the original, can't seem to locate it at post 772?

Let's set aside for the moment that Jones (aka SuoMotu, ir35amnesty.com) is behind Tim Warr's bn66.co.uk offering.

If Warr's strategy works, why didn't the Revenue go down this route instead of Section 58? I can't see the Revenue accepting Warr's view while they've got Section 58.

He says it is approved by Tax Counsel. Has anyone seen this opinion?

In any case, you need to take Tax Counsel opinion with a pinch of salt. Unfortunately, they can be "influenced" to come up with the opinion you want to hear. For example, to lend credence to ir35mnesty, Jones sought Counsel opinion to question the validity of our scheme, and got what he needed:

http://www.ir35amnesty.com/dm.pdf

We know our scheme worked because otherwise HMRC would have litigated instead of resorting to Section 58. So the above Counsel opinion is questionable.

However, the biggest concern I have over Warr's plan is that it could end in litigation (Special Commissioners etc.) which will cost an arm and a leg. Once you've signed up, these guys are going to have to keep coming back for more money to pursue your case.

Unlike Montpelier, they have no vested interest in fighting all the way.

[normalbloke]

Link to Warr and Co bn66 'solution' discussion as requested

Is this in the 'part 3' thread or the original, can't seem to locate it at post 772?

Squicker,

Try this
http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...highlight=BN66

[Squicker]

However, the biggest concern I have over Warr's plan is that it could end in litigation (Special Commissioners etc.) which will cost an arm and a leg. Once you've signed up, these guys are going to have to keep coming back for more money to pursue your case.

Why do you think this would be the case?