BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[PlaneSailing]

Mr Timms in-tray must be starting to fill up nicely.

He is going to be getting something else towards the end of this week which might give him pause for thought.

And just a reminder of Mr Timms pedigree...


http://www.publications.parliament.u.../313/31304.htm

[SantaClaus]

And just a reminder of Mr Timms pedigree...


http://www.publications.parliament.u.../313/31304.htm

So Timms colluded with the chairman of Ovum to bring in IR35 then. Wonder if this can be used in any way as it sounds like Timms is hell-bent on destroying the independent IT contractor market.
No wonder he's all for BN66!

"The presence of independent consultants in the market is resented by larger consultancies because they are more cost competitive and larger companies tend to lose skilled employees who are attracted to selling their skills and knowledge on an independent basis. In his report for the year ended 31st December 1997, Stephen Dawson, Chairman of Ovum Holdings Limited complained of the difficulty of recruiting and retaining skilled staff.

...

Implementation of the IR35 amendments is likely to diminish this problem and therefore indirectly benefit Mr Timms. "

[DonkeyRhubarb]

And just a reminder of Mr Timms pedigree...


http://www.publications.parliament.u.../313/31304.htm

They are bloody hypocrites.

I was reading about Jacqie Smith the home secretary over the weekend. She has designated a room in her sister's pad in London as her "main residence", and has claimed over £100k in 2nd home expenses on the family home where her husband and kids live in the Midlands.

[seadog]

[QUOTE=Toocan;772854]HI All,

Here is a quote from the debate on Section 58 of Finance Act 2008 – the act that closed down the Montpelier scheme retrospectively:

(Jane Kennedy)
“They ought to have been aware of the likely consequences of their wilful attempt to flout the law. The 1987 decision to tackle treaty abuse with retrospective effect was a clear signal.”

The “clear signal” from the 1987 legislation was that if one finds a loophole in a law and uses it, then one will get to keep that tax advantage. That was how the retrospective legislation was drafted in 1987 and how it was explained in 1987 by the then treasury minister (Norman Lamont).

That is the legitimate expectation. What happened in 2008 went 180 degrees against this expectation.

The 1987 debate can be found here
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/c...f-partnerships


The 2008 debate can be found here
http://www.publications.parliament.u...m/80522s03.htm
and here
http://www.publications.parliament.u...m/80522s01.htm

Well done Toocan for digging out these documents.

If forum memebrs take the trouble to read through them they will see that in 1987 it was the Labout members, including one Mr Tony Blair who objected to retrospective legislation and in 2008 it was the Conservatives who objected.

Although there are similarities between the two cases they are clealy different and any competant QC should be able to pick the bones out of the arguments to support our case.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Although there are similarities between the two cases they are clealy different and any competant QC should be able to pick the bones out of the arguments to support our case.

The differences are very simple (and stark):

The 1987 legislation prevented taxpayers from gaining a windfall by claiming retrospective tax relief.

Section 58 enables HMRC to make retrospective tax demands.

[seadog]

So Timms colluded with the chairman of Ovum to bring in IR35 then. Wonder if this can be used in any way as it sounds like Timms is hell-bent on destroying the independent IT contractor market.
No wonder he's all for BN66!

"The presence of independent consultants in the market is resented by larger consultancies because they are more cost competitive and larger companies tend to lose skilled employees who are attracted to selling their skills and knowledge on an independent basis. In his report for the year ended 31st December 1997, Stephen Dawson, Chairman of Ovum Holdings Limited complained of the difficulty of recruiting and retaining skilled staff.

...

Implementation of the IR35 amendments is likely to diminish this problem and therefore indirectly benefit Mr Timms. "

Reading this carefully certainly highlights Mt Timms tendancy against IT contractors. Add this to all the other abuses by many MP's including Jackie Smith and her 2nd home allowances and it only confirm my cynical view of some politians behaviour.

[lilo]

We are working on this.

We know that a few people have not had enquiries opened but these people will be reluctant to step forward for fear of "discovery assessments".

We know of many others who have had enquiries opened after the 12 month deadline has passed. (HMRC breaking their own rules!)

There are no contractors in the Montpelier scheme who have had enquiries closed. If there are people this has happened to (and WG seems to know there are), then I think they must be property developers.

I submitted the following Freedom of Information request to HMRC on 29th January and am waiting for a response:

I know of one contractor on the scheme who has been investigated in the past and had their return accepted. They are going to remind MP about this.

[Squicker]

Reading this carefully certainly highlights Mt Timms tendancy against IT contractors. Add this to all the other abuses by many MP's including Jackie Smith and her 2nd home allowances and it only confirm my cynical view of some politians behaviour.

MPs don't like us because we earn a lot more than them. Sour grapes stick in their saggy craw.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I know of one contractor on the scheme who has been investigated in the past and had their return accepted. They are going to remind MP about this.

I suppose HMRC could claim it was an administrative mistake but nevertheless if this is true it wouldn't look good.

On top of the SuoMotu deals, and deals done through ir35amnesty, it all builds up to paint a picture of an organisation that didn't have a clear strategy for dealing with the scheme.

What amazes me is why HMRC would want this going anywhere near a courtroom. Don't they realise it is going to make them look like utter bungling idiots?

[macdat]

I know of one contractor on the scheme who has been investigated in the past and had their return accepted. They are going to remind MP about this.

Surely this would set a precedent and would be 'End Game' for HMRC ?