BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[Emigre]

I would like to get a better picture of exactly how many people would have to sell their homes to (fully or partially) meet their liability.

The survey for the JCHR was only a tiny sample of around 100.

I could do a Poll on here but not many people are registered to vote.

Any ideas?

Given the mis-statements in the Parker J's judgement it is important to obtain a complete and accurate picture of the facts if they are to be used again.

We will never get all 2500 of us allegedly impacted to provide details but a more detailed picture from those that are prepared to provide it would be good.

The following is a strawman to develop or attack so carry on!

I sense it needs to be some sort tick questionnaire involving how much tax is owed, how much interest, which years are involved, your net assets less partners share etc, and some assessment of the relative liquidity (ie how much in the house, and how much more easily realised).

DR has shown his trusted credentials on our behalf and so we should not fear providing him with this information.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Given the mis-statements in the Parker J's judgement it is important to obtain a complete and accurate picture of the facts if they are to be used again.

We will never get all 2500 of us allegedly impacted to provide details but a more detailed picture from those that are prepared to provide it would be good.

I suspect nothing we produce will be believed. I am sure HMRC just think everyone is swinging the lead.

I have the means to pay (CTD, savings). I won't need to borrow money or sell my home. I could settle tomorrow but why would I until all avenues of appeal have been exhausted?

I don't know if I'm in the majority or the minority. But I do know that there are an awful lot of people who can't afford to pay.

If everyone was in my position I wouldn't be fighting as hard. In different circumstances that could have been me.

[KiwiGuy]

I would like to get a better picture of exactly how many people would have to sell their homes to (fully or partially) meet their liability.

The survey for the JCHR was only a tiny sample of around 100.

I could do a Poll on here but not many people are registered to vote.

Any ideas?

Ive just sold mine .... so have Cash for the payments, probably would have had to re-mortagage, so the next house will have considerably more debt if not smaller

[GavM]

Will retrospective taxes affect us all?

Not sure if anyone has seen this yet. It was posted this morning.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/business/8496921.stm

[PlaneSailing]

Hooray

Not sure if anyone has seen this yet. It was posted this morning.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/business/8496921.stm

Blimey

As an aside, can someone confirm that Padmore didn't result
in the Revenue going after more money, it just removed a relief?

If so that's a very different situation.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Blimey

As an aside, can someone confirm that Padmore didn't result
in the Revenue going after more money, it just removed a relief?

If so that's a very different situation.

Confirmed.

Also, Padmore and others who had a pre-existing claim were allowed to keep their relief.

No-one had to cough up a penny of extra tax.

[nuffsaid]

Not sure if anyone has seen this yet. It was posted this morning.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/business/8496921.stm

Hasn't she got this bit wrong? I thought it was the other way round?

HMRC appeared sympathetic, telling the court that "before seeking to enforce demands for tax and interest", it would take into account the scheme participants' financial hardship.

But Judge Parker actively discouraged this compassionate approach.

He said the HMRC should consider whether such treatment was fair to other taxpayers who had not avoided taxes, or to those scheme participants who had set aside money to pay any eventual liability.

He concluded that this "fairness in this broader sense" could significantly restrict the extent to which HMRC could show mercy to those facing serious money problems, even where the individuals' financial circumstances were "unfortunate and distressing".

[PlaneSailing]

Confirmed.

Also, Padmore and others who had a pre-existing claim were allowed to keep their relief.

No-one had to cough up a penny of extra tax.

So I could reasonably expect that everyone who has a claim
against this change to be exempted from the retrospective change.

[nuffsaid]

Below is my calculation of the accrued interest for each tax year:

2001/2 - 48%
2002/3 - 42%
2003/4 - 35%
2004/5 - 28%
2005/6 - 21%
2006/7 - 14%
2007/8 - 6%

Could you put this table on page 1 again? Ta

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So I could reasonably expect that everyone who has a claim
against this change to be exempted from the retrospective change.

You could indeed.

As Toocan pointed out some time ago, just like Icecream, retrospection comes in several flavours.