BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[KiwiGuy]

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.

ha ha ha ha i have to admit i did laugh after that article, at the bottom is google ads

Umbrella Company
Umbrellas leave you with 64%, We ensure you receive up to 85%

www.*****.com

Keep 85% Of Your Income
Tax Efficient Solutions. Full HMR&C Compliance.

[KiwiGuy]

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."

yep its been published

[ROBIN REDBREAST]

Taxman's error could hit thousands of pensioners

Another sterling effort by HMRC

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/mon...cle7019227.ece

Thousands of pensioners may have been issued with the wrong tax code following the introduction of a new computer system at HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), it emerged today.

HMRC said that people who started to claim their state pension during the 2009/2010 tax year may have been given the wrong tax code for this April, meaning they could pay too little or too much tax.

But it does not know how many people have been affected by the problem, and could not say how much people may be overcharged by.

It is also thought married couples and civil partners aged 76 and over could lose their married couples allowance, which was worth up to £6,965 during the current tax year, due to the glitch.

Related Links
Tax code error could cost people thousands
The beginner's guide to self-assessment
The problem has been caused by the introduction of a new computer system, which combines information on people’s National Insurance contributions and the Pay As You Earn (Paye) scheme for the first time.

In some cases, the system appears not to have information on people leaving jobs, meaning that those who have stopped working and started drawing a pension are being treated as if they have two income streams.

The problems are also affecting people with more than one job, or those who have changed jobs in the past few years.

The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group said: “Like many new computer systems, the information going in has produced unexpected errors coming out and although HMRC are battling hard to resolve them, they will not totally succeed before tax starts to be deducted in April.

“So out of the millions of pensioner tax codes going out over the next few weeks, a significant number will be incorrect.”

An HMRC spokeswoman said: “We are continuing to improve the system and address any issues brought to our attention.

“We accept and very much regret that errors have occurred in some of the notices that have issued but the majority of codes are right.

“We recognise that some of the data brought forward from previous systems may be inaccurate and we are taking every opportunity to correct that.

“If any customer has concerns about the accuracy of their coding notice they should contact us so that we can review and correct as necessary.”

If you are concerned about your tax code and you think it is wrong, first check the guidance included with the coding notice and at http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax. Otherwise, contact HMRC on 0845 3000 627.

The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has further useful advice for those affected here

[SantaClaus]

yep its been published

Excellent!

[Squicker]

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

As a note, bankruptcy can't touch most pensions. So it may, for some people, be more efficient to go bankrupt, losing the house but keeping the pension assets.

Being as the house is a financed asset and the pension isn't.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

As a note, bankruptcy can't touch most pensions.

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/pdfs/gu...df/pension.pdf

How will bankruptcy affect my pension?

If a bankruptcy order is made on a bankruptcy petition presented on or after 29 May 2000, all pension schemes that have been approved by HM Revenue and Customs remain outside a bankrupt's estate. This means they cannot be claimed by the trustee in bankruptcy. This follows the introduction of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Pensions & Bankruptcy

http://www.pensionsadvisoryservice.o...ons/bankruptcy

Bankruptcy After 29 May 2000

The Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 protects all pensions arising from tax-approved pension schemes against being part of a bankrupt's estate, for anyone made bankrupt after 29 May 2000. So, the Trustee In Bankruptcy (TIB) cannot control the pension to pay off creditors.

The TIB can apply to the Court, however, to receive a pension in payment for a period, under an Income Payments Order. But the Enterprise Act 2002 has reduced the automatic discharge period for people made bankrupt after 1 April 2004 to one year, so it is anticipated that a TIB will have little time to apply for an Income Payments Order. Also, the bankrupt can make an out-of-court agreement with the TIB to pay over a part of the pension for a specified period.

However, the discharge period can be extended if the bankrupt fails to comply with the obligations of the bankruptcy order. This can happen if the bankrupt for example had made what are deemed to be "excessive" contributions to a pension policy before bankruptcy.

[Overwhelmed]

I have voted yes. I guess it may be possible to re-mortgage, but hasn't this got more difficult recently? I can't imagine how the conversation with the building society representative would go, if one opened a loan discussion with 'I need a loan to pay all of my tax from 2001'

[northernSoul]

I agree 100%.

If the Letter of the Law is applied by a higher court, and in doing so this higher court recognises that we were doing nothing illegal, I live in the hope that this higher court would find it immoral to rule against us.

I am in this till the end.

The letter of the law says that you ARE doing something unlawful, because the letter of the law is s58 Finance Act 2008. Furthermore the letter of the law says you were always doing something unlawful, even when you might not have been.

You need the letter of the law like a hole in the head ! That is why Huiston's people were invoking the Human Rights Act and arguing, in effect, that the letter of the law was itself unlawful. The trouble is that once you drag in the ECHR you allow the court to consider loads of extraneous stuff - like the benefit to society of said legislation.

[poppy01]

The letter of the law says that you ARE doing something unlawful, because the letter of the law is s58 Finance Act 2008. Furthermore the letter of the law says you were always doing something unlawful, even when you might not have been.

You need the letter of the law like a hole in the head ! That is why Huiston's people were invoking the Human Rights Act and arguing, in effect, that the letter of the law was itself unlawful. The trouble is that once you drag in the ECHR you allow the court to consider loads of extraneous stuff - like the benefit to society of said legislation.

Am I doing something unlawful. I left the scheme in 2003. What was the law then, was it the s58 Finance Act 2008? Its paradoxes like this which make time travel impossible.