BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[DonkeyRhubarb]

DR - many thanks. Can you confirm what the actual interest rate per year was (so that I can check HMRC calculations). Sounds like 2001/2 rate was around 6% - many thanks

Unfortunately it's not that simple because the rate can change during the year. Also, I believe interest is charged from the date payment on account was due, not the deadline for SA (31st Jan).

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/interest-late.htm

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Poll

I am considering adding a Poll to this thread. I want to keep it very simple so it can't be misinterpretted/misconstrued.

What do people think?

Are you at risk of losing your home because of Section 58 FA2008?

1) Yes
2) No

[warlord]

Poll......

Are you at risk of losing your home because of Section 58 FA2008?

1) Yes
2) No

= Maybe. (if I had to pay today, then YES)

It depends I guess if I can remortgage. My fixed rate ends in July. I do have money in the house......

I have no savings at all
I owe 37K on bloody credit cards

[Toocan]

Well Jim, imagine you had 'played by the rules' and declared the income too - then you'd really be angry.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8500264.stm

How did you vote, Jim, in Finance Act 2008?

Oh really?!

Well well... you wouldn't have though it possible. I mean, not in the UK. We were once the cradle of democracy you know....

[SantaClaus]

Well Jim, imagine you had 'played by the rules' and declared the income too - then you'd really be angry.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8500264.stm

How did you vote, Jim, in Finance Act 2008?

Oh really?!

Well well... you wouldn't have though it possible. I mean, not in the UK. We were once the cradle of democracy you know....

[OnYourBikeGB]

I am considering adding a Poll to this thread. I want to keep it very simple so it can't be misinterpretted/misconstrued.

What do people think?

Would it be a good idea to emphasis the percentages rather than the numbers? A lot of the press seemed to think we were talking 57 people out of 2500 etc, rather than a sample of 200. Those that did report it correctly seemed to put it, possibly deliberately, confusingly (eg a sample out of 2500 showed 57 might lose their homes etc). 'Over 25% face losing their homes' drives it home a bit more.

[Toocan]

Would it be a good idea to emphasis the percentages rather than the numbers? A lot of the press seemed to think we were talking 57 people out of 2500 etc, rather than a sample of 200. Those that did report it correctly seemed to put it, possibly deliberately, confusingly (eg a sample out of 2500 showed 57 might lose their homes etc). 'Over 25% face losing their homes' drives it home a bit more.

I agree that the numbers were reported (by the Judge and the Press) in a misleading manner.

However, I can’t be the only person who thinks the treatment of these number is astonishing.

Regardless of whether it is perceived as 60% of people losing their homes, or 57 people losing their homes – when did it became okay to bankrupt that many people?

These are still 57 families who will have all they have worked for taken away from them by an unfair, back-dated, tax law.

This is not the country I grew up in.

[poppy01]

epiphany

Folks, I'm going to get flamed for this, I know, but after a couple of weeks in which I've veered between shock, despair, anger, renewed hope, bullishness and finally acceptance, I've reached an epiphany. We will in the end have to pay this tax. The fact of retrospection almost doesn't matter, reading the JR judgement, and comments posted on other sites, the issue isn't so much retrospection as how little tax we actually paid for those years. 3.65%?? Who were we kidding? Fact is we could have structured the scheme any way we liked, we could have structured it so we paid say 20%... if that was the case do you think we'd be in the position we are. well maybe.. but we'd have a whole lot less of a financial burden to bear. HMRC were useless admittedly and should not have let it go on as long as it did.. but I return to that number, 3.65%. Ridiculous. I won't be settling though, not yet, as I am unable. I am now only using the legal process to give me time.. to save... plan... and hope that maybe house prices will go up enough before the legal process is exhausted to give me enough equity to avoid bankruptcy, as this would prevent me working anywhere other than Macdonald's. I wish everyone well, and will continue to check the forum for news, but I think in the words of the Terminator, 'Judgement Day is inevitable'

[caliban]

If the principal of retrospectivity is admitted then it would surely be prudent of HMRC to open an enquiry into everyones tax return. A speculative scrutiny if you will, serving to hold the door of investigation ajar in anticipation of favourable retrospective legislation. Indeed, to do otherwise might be considered negligent.

[Toocan]

Folks, I'm going to get flamed for this, I know, but after a couple of weeks in which I've veered between shock, despair, anger, renewed hope, bullishness and finally acceptance, I've reached an epiphany. We will in the end have to pay this tax.

The actual tax paid will vary depending on what your total income was, and how much went throught the DTA.

However, I think you are rather missing the point. You pay tax based on statute (ie a list of rules), not on someone's idea of fairness.

There is nothing 'fair' about tax - how can it be fair that the harder you work, the more you pay? That is rather perverse!

If tax was 'fair' then, let's say you had to replace your roof or your car - in a fair world you'd get a tax break for that. You don't, because it's not in the rule book.

I think you are right to save and prepare for the worst - but I don't agree there was anything wrong with the scheme. HMRC wrote the rules - if they didn't like them they could have changed them. There is a finance act every year just for this purpose.