BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[smalldog]

Well it's not like he was busying writing responses to questions.

if he has spare capacity to take on more work how come he hasnt actually done whats already been asked of him by the JCHR?

[TheBarCapBoyz]

£200 million again

Someone mentioned that HMRC always estimates savings as £200m.

Here's another one, in yesterday's Telegraph, about SA work being oursourced to India.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...ly-claims.html

"Officials at HM Revenue and Customs are said to be looking at the proposals to save £200 million a year."

[smalldog]

Someone mentioned that HMRC always estimates savings as £200m.

Here's another one, in yesterday's Telegraph, about SA work being oursourced to India.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...ly-claims.html

"Officials at HM Revenue and Customs are said to be looking at the proposals to save £200 million a year."

doest ANYONE EVER QUESTION THEM!!!! How can you justify legislation etc on figures just plucked out of the air...

[DaveB]

Someone mentioned that HMRC always estimates savings as £200m.

Here's another one, in yesterday's Telegraph, about SA work being oursourced to India.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...ly-claims.html

"Officials at HM Revenue and Customs are said to be looking at the proposals to save £200 million a year."

Try this.

Linky

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Worth reading

I came across the minutes of the House of Lords debates from 20th July 2009 wrt the Finance Bill:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/...-07-20a.1451.4

Lord Higgins raises serious concerns about the retrospective actions and refers to possible exceptions where HMRC had no knowledge of a scheme, but 7 years?? Not like they had no idea about it all that time.

Lord Myners goes on to comment that retrospection could be applied to "the most heinous forms of tax avoidance".

Wow, I normally associated that word with a crime as defined in the dictionary. Also defines it as "wicked or reprehensible; abonimable" & "morally bad in principle or practice".

Blimey, surely HMRC wouldn't take 7 years to get to grips with such "heinous" activities would they?

I could say that from a Human Rights perspective, such comments make someone feel criminal even though they are not.

[smalldog]

I came across the minutes of the House of Lords debates from 20th July 2009 wrt the Finance Bill:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/...-07-20a.1451.4

Lord Higgins raises serious concerns about the retrospective actions and refers to possible exceptions where HMRC had no knowledge of a scheme, but 7 years?? Not like they had no idea about it all that time.

Lord Myners goes on to comment that retrospection could be applied to "the most heinous forms of tax avoidance".

Wow, I normally associated that word with a crime as defined in the dictionary. Also defines it as "wicked or reprehensible; abonimable" & "morally bad in principle or practice".

Blimey, surely HMRC wouldn't take 7 years to get to grips with such "heinous" activities would they?

I could say that from a Human Rights perspective, such comments make someone feel criminal even though they are not.

but quite rightly higgins says:

I want to say a word or two about the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights as regards retrospection. I have always been strongly of the view that one must distinguish between tax avoidance and tax evasion. We have had exchanges across the Floor on this matter. It is clear that tax avoidance is legal and that tax evasion is not; but as a result of sophisticated accountants working on various schemes, from time to time we find ourselves in a situation whereby the Revenue has to catch up with the schemes that have been devised. In that context, the report of the Joint Committee is very worrying. It may be felt, in extreme circumstances, that there should be retrospection, because the Revenue did not catch up immediately on particular schemes, even though the Revenue is now informed of them. However, the report points out that it is extraordinary that we are introducing retrospective legislation which involves going back seven years. There might be a case, if a cunning scheme is discovered, that the Revenue could say, "We can't catch this immediately; it is a bad thing; and we will go back a year or so"; but to let a matter run for seven years and then clobber people is extraordinary. The Joint Committee points out that people are going bankrupt as a result of this, having operated for seven years on what they believed to be a perfectly legal basis. Perhaps the Minister can give his views on that.

We have them on our side too...it doesnt matter what side of the fence you are on, whether you think we were justified in utilising legislation to reduce our tax bill, or you think we are a bunch of cheating tulips its irrelevant...the time delay is the issue!!!

[anxious1]

Myners

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle5950498.ece

As has been said before good 'ol Lord Myners is in no position to lecture anyone about the avoidance of tax! The "most heinous forms of tax avoidance" indeed!

[PlaneSailing]

Hang on a minute

I came across the minutes of the House of Lords debates from 20th July 2009 wrt the Finance Bill:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/...-07-20a.1451.4

Lord Higgins raises serious concerns about the retrospective actions and refers to possible exceptions where HMRC had no knowledge of a scheme, but 7 years?? Not like they had no idea about it all that time.

Lord Myners goes on to comment that retrospection could be applied to "the most heinous forms of tax avoidance".

Wow, I normally associated that word with a crime as defined in the dictionary. Also defines it as "wicked or reprehensible; abonimable" & "morally bad in principle or practice".

Blimey, surely HMRC wouldn't take 7 years to get to grips with such "heinous" activities would they?

I could say that from a Human Rights perspective, such comments make someone feel criminal even though they are not.

Reading Lord Myners reply, it seems he is talking about something that
went on in January 2009, which I guess is this retrospective legislation:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/91d2bc32-5...44feabdc0.html




This goes back a whole 4 months, NOT seven years!

I think Myners may have got muddled up!


edit: Both the January case and our case are discussed here by the JCHR:

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../133/13304.htm

(n.b. Timms again. He can't get enough, and guess what £200million again)

[smalldog]

Reading Lord Myners reply, it seems he is talking about something that
went on in January 2009, which I guess is this retrospective legislation:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/91d2bc32-5...44feabdc0.html




This goes back a whole 4 months, NOT seven years!

I think Myners may have got muddled up!


edit: Both the January case and our case are discussed here by the JCHR:

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../133/13304.htm

(n.b. Timms again. He can't get enough, and guess what £200million again)

be funny if we all used that for application forms for mortgages, loans etc.

Salary plus bonus and any overtime = £200m, dya think we would get away without someone checking? I still dont get why NOBODY has questioned the accuracy of the £200m until the JCHR became involved....

[Squicker]

I also like the repeated use of "customer" when referring to the populace. I wonder if if they have one of those customer service banners on their office walls saying "Customer is King" or "Customer is always right"? Probably not. More likely they have one saying "Customer is to be crucified".

I think they have one that says, "you don't have to be an utter tosser to work here but...oh yes, you do."