BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[DonkeyRhubarb]

You couldn't make this up:

http://waugh.standard.co.uk/2009/04/...s-50p-tax.html

The Darling giveth and the Darling taketh away. I'd wish he'd have the same "fair and balanced" take on BN66...

If 31% is a Treasury estimate then that's probably on the very optimistic side. Just like IR35, the 50% tax will probably generate bugger all, and will just drive more people into the arms of the tax avoidance industry or encourage them to flee abroad.

Tax avoidance is definitely one industry which has positively thrived under NuLabour.

Of course, this Government is more interested in PR than substance. If they ditched the dogma, and took a more pragmatic view, then they would realise that targeting higher tax rates at the wealthy is counter-productive.

Sadly Labour don't seem to have learned much from the 1970s.

[smalldog]

If 31% is a Treasury estimate then that's probably on the very optimistic side. Just like IR35, the 50% tax will probably generate bugger all, and will just drive more people into the arms of the tax avoidance industry or encourage them to flee abroad.

Tax avoidance is definitely one industry which has positively thrived under NuLabour.

Of course, this Government is more interested in PR than substance. If they ditched the dogma, and took a more pragmatic view, then they would realise that targeting higher tax rates at the wealthy is counter-productive.

Sadly Labour don't seem to have learned much from the 1970s.

This is what concerns me, they dont get it...Its slapping them round the face that raising taxes with the wealthy means they just avoid paying it somehow and is exactly as you say, counter productive becuase guess what, they are clever thats why they are wealthy!!!!

They spend all this money implementing legislation like the 50p hike, then yield such a tiny fraction they actually are bottom line worse off...They are costing the tax paying public millions in failed legislation to raise revenues. If they just made the tax system simple, fair and proportionate people wouldnt avoid paying it. Make something at least seem extortionate and people wont pay, make it seem value for money and guess what, people dont mind coughing up...Im all for a flat rate for everyone, call it 30% and make it irrespective of salary thresholds etc...anyone that can actually do maths will understand that the more you earn, the more you pay....so your £20k per year worker will pay £6k in tax per year...your £100k per year worker pays £30k in tax. Why we have to keep raising the tax band the more you earn I have never ever understood, there is no reasoned argument apart from "well you earn more so should pay more into society", excuse me but get tuliped!!!!, its pure greed on the treasurys part and discourages people to earn more and when they do, to squirrel it away somewhere hidden, its just damn unfair...You get penalised for being successful in the UK, typical Labour..and then you read about the woman on benefits who has had 13 children taken off her and put into care which has so far cost the tax payer over a £1m!!! oh and she is pregnant again...her husband cant work cos he is apparently her carer cos she has trouble walking, ok to get pregnant of course!!!! I get so mad that we get so much stress and grief from the government over all this but you have morons like this in our society blatantly contributing F all and costing us all a fortune....Im all for sterlising pikeys!!!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If they just made the tax system simple, fair and proportionate people wouldnt avoid paying it.

Going from a complex system to a simple system would be straightforward from a fiscal point of view.

The problem is it would create many winners and many losers, which would be a political disaster. Remember the change from the Rates to the Poll Tax?

[BolshieBastard]

As I understand it HMRC are obligated to apply the law. The law is Section58 FA2008. I would expect primary legislation to rank above the HMRC manual.



I can see where you are coming from. Yes, we're probably on the limit but so far I don't feel we have given them anything but have opened up a few potential angles for ourselves. Where there is conflict in the law, as may be the case here, it is up to the courts to resolve, and may give us another line of attack if the JR fails.

Well today, I received a reply from timms via my mP to my follow up letter about this fiasco. timms has refused to answer any of the questions I asked on the grounds that 'a judicial review has been granted.....' and 'therefore it would be inappropriate for me to respond.'

So, in other words, Im not divulging anything which could be used against us at the JR.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Well today, I received a reply from timms via my mP to my follow up letter about this fiasco. timms has refused to answer any of the questions I asked on the grounds that 'a judicial review has been granted.....' and 'therefore it would be inappropriate for me to respond.'

So, in other words, Im not divulging anything which could be used against us at the JR.

Unfortunately, Lurch* has got a spot of bother on that front. He may be able to pull that one with us, but the Human Rights committee won't be having any of it. The committee clerk asked me when the JR was expected to take place because, quote:

"It's important in trying to work out how long the Treasury hope not to send us any substantive information about the Government's position."

TimmsJCHR


===================
* Apparently, this is his nickname in Parliamentary circles

[silver_lining]

JCHR publication

DR,

The JCHR are in receipt of a written reply by the Govt (Timms); do you know when they will publish this?

SL

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Shock and Awe

DR,

The JCHR are in receipt of a written reply by the Govt (Timms); do you know when they will publish this?

SL

Here's one possible content:
"Dear JCHR, to quote DR (no not the donkey who keeps making us look dim but Donald Rumsfeld), BN66 is shock and awe. We know what we know and we know what we don't know. Not knowing what you know is what BN66 clarifies. If people know what we don't know then we'd not know, hence the very clear leglislation of BN66. Happy? Yours faithlessly, Timmy"

[DonkeyRhubarb]

DR,

The JCHR are in receipt of a written reply by the Govt (Timms); do you know when they will publish this?

SL

Hopefully within the next few weeks, but because of the recess it might take a bit longer than usual.

I know it doesn't contain any of the information they requested, so I am more interested in seeing the JCHR's follow-up.

[OldITGit]

300 High Court Claims against HMRC

In yesterdays Sunday Mail it stated that 300 companies and local authorities were taking HMRC to court over millions of pounds they are owed (I wonder if it is the standard £200 million......) as HMRC overcharged for VAT.....why am I not surprised.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

How to shoot ones own foot!

Came across this a while back:

http://www.tax.org.uk/attach.pl/7249...nedy080708.pdf

A reply to CIOT asking about retrospective tax. I especially like the wording on para 2 page 2:
"Last year HMRC's disclosure scheme revealed that the latest version of the scheme was being used on an unprecented scale. Given this and the wilful intent of these schemes to circumvent the clear purpose of the 1987 leglislation, the Government considered it appropriate to clarify the leglislation."

Poor Jane. So she starts by referring to a "scheme" (singular) then refers to "schemes" (plural) when she appears to be talking about the same thing(s). Then, and I like this, she refers to the "clear" leglislation which the Governenment then clarifies. Wow! Anyone know what O'level English Language mark she got?