BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[SantaClaus]

A very promising article in the Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...-employed.html

It seems like the PCG is doing good work representing the Contractors long term interest although I know some of us dont agree fully with them. I'm thinking of joining them and adding my voice to the long term cause.

I felt in the mood to send them a comment. Lets see if it's published:

"When the govt. brought in IR35, many freelance IT contractors felt they were treated unfairly by being classified as "disguised employees" and so signed up to a tax avoidance method based in the Isle of Man.

Recently, a case was lost in the high court (Huitson vs HMRC) and the tax avoidance loophole was closed. However, it was closed retrospectively for the past 7 years, even though using the loophole was completely legal at the time.

One has to ask whether this Labour govt. have "got it in" for IT freelancers, especially as Stephen Timms was on the board of Ovum Plc. He also lied in parliament stating that the govt were "clarifying" an existing tax law from 1987, rather than retrospectively changing it."

[DonkeyRhubarb]

52 votes

Not bad for the first day.

Please keep them coming.

Why should I bother voting?

Because the forum is not only being watched by HMRC, but also by the media.

It is important that we get the message out loud and clear that hundreds of families could lose their homes over this.

[ALMAC]

Poll

I am obviously thick.

How do I vote in the poll.

Is there a link?

[ALMAC]

poll

please help

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I am obviously thick.

How do I vote in the poll.

Is there a link?

I will look into it.

[not-a-penny]

Not news but ...

Stepen Timms (last year) guardian interview: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...oidance-action

Tax evasion and avoidance are different, but they both undermine tax revenues and investment in public services. That makes them very damaging to what this government has been trying to achieve.

Tax evasion is unlawful. Those who engage in it risk prosecution. HM Revenue & Customs has succeeded in driving down VAT and excise fraud in recent years - reducing losses by about £4bn. In 2007 we set up the offshore disclosure facility to encourage UK residents with unpaid tax connected to offshore accounts to make full disclosures or risk being pursued by HMRC. This alone recovered over £400m.

Tax avoidance, on the other hand, is not illegal. Typically, it uses legitimate reliefs but in ways that were never intended. It can involve very complex arrangements to help those who don't want to pay their fair share get around the rules. We have a good record on tackling it. In 2004 we introduced the tax avoidance disclosure regime. Those individuals who sell avoidance arrangements to businesses must report them within five days, so that HMRC has real-time intelligence.

Using this intelligence, we have been able to close off over £11bn in potential avoidance opportunities. I also announced in the House of Commons a couple of weeks ago that we would act in this year's finance bill to close a tax loophole that had just become apparent - with effect from the date of the announcement. We won't hesitate to act quickly like that whenever we need to.

Unbelieavable! he is actually boasting about how quick they are. So Mr Timms how come it took 7 years to act on our scheme? Is it because you did not need to? The coffers must be empty.

Meanwhile these incompetent liars are covering up by hiding ILLEGAL "clarifications" in the small print. The Human Rights Joint Committee was not impressed: http://www.publications.parliament.u.../133/13304.htm

1.23 We cleared last year's Finance Bill from scrutiny without raising any human rights concerns with the Government. No representations were received at the time about the retrospectivity of the relevant provision and nothing was received from the Government identifying the provision as having retrospective effect and explaining the Government's justification for such retrospectivity. Finance Bills are invariably lengthy and highly technical in nature. In the absence of a memorandum or representations from those directly affected, it is almost impossible to identify provisions which raise human rights questions in such bills in the time available.

1.24 We recommend that in future the Government provide our Committee with a Memorandum accompanying the Finance Bill, identifying any provisions in the Bill which have retrospective effect, together with an assessment of the impact of the retrospective provision and a detailed explanation of the justification for the retrospectivity.

[warlord]

Stake in your house

Having given it a great deal of thought, I have decided to restrict the Poll to the question of whether people's homes are at risk.

I realise others, like me, stand to lose money we've saved for our pension, but the reality is HMRC can take this off us in a shot. The family home is a bit more sentitive.

The CUK Site Administrator has configured the site so that anyone who has registered can vote. In other words, you can vote even if you don't want to post.

Does this decribe your situation?
If HMRC demanded payment now, you wouldn't be able to pay.
In order to raise some or all of the money, your house would have to be sold.

If so, then please register and vote Yes

DR - unless I am wrong do HMRC not just take a Stake in your house? Assuming you have money in that is........

[Passage2India]

Keep the votes coming

Hi DR,
Another long time lurker finally joins the party & have just voted!
Just like to add my thanks for all your efforts in keeping us up to date.

[poppy01]

DR - unless I am wrong do HMRC not just take a Stake in your house? Assuming you have money in that is........

the poll just asks if there is a risk. if hmrc played hardball then I would be at risk of losing my house, at any rate even if not I'll be paying it off the rest of my working life

[StellaFan]

I voted "no". I don't think my house would actually have to sold but I would have to part re-mortgage and my pension plans would be in ruins