BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[normalbloke]

Whilst IR35 is riddled with holes and is farcically applied, I'm not sure that it is retrospective in the same way that S58 is. OK, HMRC can go back years and deem contracts within IR35, but at the time of taking those contracts we did know IR35 already existed and might be applied to those contracts.

Section 58 suddenly introduced the 1987 Act into a legitimate tax planning arrangement and deemed it applying from that point. From 2001 until 2008 there was no mention of it by HMRC as the reason the arrangement in their (soon to be found wrong) opinion didn't work.

[Emigre]

Forgetful Sceptics

I see that the flurry of trolls and tulip-stirrers have retired hurt and once again left this thread to those that care about the outcome of the JR and in some cases whose financial lives depend upon it.

Long may it be so.

[ROBIN REDBREAST]

Here here

...and personal lives for some I'm sure.

I'm lucky to have what I percieve as a strong relationship with the mother of my 3 children, however if we lose, having to sell the family home to pay off retrospective tax demands and more likely than not having to buy a house in a new area and move our children from their existing school would put any relationship to test.

I see that the flurry of trolls and tulip-stirrers have retired hurt and once again left this thread to those that care about the outcome of the JR and in some cases whose financial lives depend upon it.

Long may it be so.

[johnnyguitar]

my two pennies

I'm not sure what's come over me but as the big day aproaches, I'm feeling increasingly optimistic.

There are many smart people on our side who have spent many more hours making sure that there is a strong argument against every ill-thought claim that HMRC are making / have made.
HMRC have been inconsistent all along and have clearly not thought this through properly.

We're not 'tax-dodgers', we just want to plan / arrange our finances efficiently within the rule of the law. Which is why I chose this scheme - because it was completely transparent & openly declared to HMRC. I came here because IR35 is fundementally unfair would leave you in an uncertain 'limbo' for several years.
All we are asking for is a clear set of rules.
Why can't they spend their time & energy, coming up with a concise & fair system for us all to use ? No one wants to be in this situation. If they chose to consult wth us it may be much more productive.

I for one have my mind set on this one. I will never pay this unfair demand. I would rather burn every penny I have fighting it, leaving nothing for them to come after. They will never scaremonger me into giving in, if they win a hearing, I/we will appeal again and again. It will take them years. and in the end, I will go bankrupt and have nothing left for them.

[Emigre]

A quality two pennies

All we are asking for is a clear set of rules.
Why can't they spend their time & energy, coming up with a concise & fair system for us all to use ? No one wants to be in this situation. If they chose to consult wth us it may be much more productive.

You've hit the nail on the head. HMRC have made no effort over all the years to engage with any of us. Quite to the contrary, they "opened enquiries" and then did precisely nothing. At no point prior to the publication of BN66 did HMRC state that the post Padmore 1987 legislation worked, and yet that is the piece of legislation that they chose to "clarify" with BN66.

The oppressive behaviour of the UK tax authorities is, as a previous poster put it, more in keeping with what you might expect in Zimbabwe. They and their Ministerial representatives have openly lied, have been deceitful, and have done their best to obfuscate legal process that we are all entitled to. They continue to do so. There is no place in a civilised society for that kind of establishment behaviour.

I notice that both HMT and HMRC had their accounts qualified this year by the NAO. I wonder what other incompetent and corrupt activities are being concealed.

[SantaClaus]

I see that the flurry of trolls and tulip-stirrers have retired hurt and once again left this thread to those that care about the outcome of the JR and in some cases whose financial lives depend upon it.

Long may it be so.

I think they remembered to take their medication

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Scheme usage prior to 2001

Actual evidence has come to light that the scheme was used earlier than 2001, and HMRC were fully aware of it.

In other words, they misled Parliament.

Not surprisingly, they don't want to respond to the following FOI request.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...e_before_20012

The question is, how much are they hiding?

[helen7]

Actual evidence has come to light that the scheme was used earlier than 2001, and HMRC were fully aware of it.

In other words, they misled Parliament.

Not surprisingly, they don't want to respond to the following FOI request.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...e_before_20012

The question is, how much are they hiding?

So, it would be fair to say that we are not being treated equally to other tax payers; since those that used the scheme prior to 2001 are not being pursued.

I would assume that users prior to 2001 had their submitted tax returns accepted without challenge from HMRC.

Since we are making the same claim, I cannot see how we can possible be treated to different rules to those users of the scheme prior to 2001.

Good work DR!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So, it would be fair to say that we are not being treated equally to other tax payers; since those that used the scheme prior to 2001 are not being pursued.

I would assume that users prior to 2001 had their submitted tax returns accepted without challenge from HMRC.

Since we are making the same claim, I cannot see how we can possible be treated to different rules to those users of the scheme prior to 2001.

Good work DR!

The problem is getting HMRC to come clean about what they did and didn't know. Their usual response is to claim ignorance.

There are some users since 2001 whose returns have never been challenged, but HMRC's excuse is that it is difficult for them to identify everyone.

[smalldog]

The problem is getting HMRC to come clean about what they did and didn't know. Their usual response is to claim ignorance.

There are some users since 2001 whose returns have never been challenged, but HMRC's excuse is that it is difficult for them to identify everyone.

that can be quite easily turned back round, arent HMRC and the law very very insistent that ignorance is not admissible as a defense?? basically if u didnt know the rules then tough Sh*t u should have!

touche HMRC touche!