BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[Cantthinkof1]

What are HMRC doing about it???

DR,

I am a little suprised about what HMRC are doing about their recent 'victory' ...
I half expected Closure Notices flying through the letter boxes..
My worry now is that they have smelt blood, and are quite content to sit back for a while and see the interest charges accumulate even more.

I am one of those unfortunate people who could not 'pay up' tomorrow...
I very much doubt it, but HMRC could be rather clever here and offer some sort of amnesty, where they dropped the penalties, and maybe were content on recouping the additional tax and interest charges...

In a nutshell, I think that if they are prepared to negotiate, then they may see more money recouped than if they went in 'heavy handed' ...

... oh well, I can live in hope !!!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I am a little suprised about what HMRC are doing about their recent 'victory'

I have been wondering the same thing myself. I thought by now we'd at least have had the long awaited 2nd edition of the "newsletter".

Call me paranoid but I can't help thinking they're up to something.

Incidentally, just to correct you on one thing, there are no penalties being charged.

[Cantthinkof1]

Oh, my mistake, I thought that there were penalties being added...
Never ever seen a CN yet, so just not sure what the amount is for me, but talking about just under 3 years!!! ...

Thank you for pointing out about the penalties...

[Cantthinkof1]

Nearing the election ..

Thinking about this DR, I am starting to wonder whether it will not be acted upon until the election is 'out of the way' - I guess that no one want to upset any voters at this stage !!!!??? - HMRC may well of received a directive from Parliament about 'timing issues' ??

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Back from the sun

Well back to Blighty after a nice sunny break in the Caribbean and catching up on all the correspondence here.

Met a bloke who's an ex-pat businessman who left the UK 2 years ago. We chatted a lot about the UK tax system and he seemed rather well informed. The upshot of his take was this:

Under Labour the tax system has become so complicated and volumous that nobody seems to understand it, knows how to interpret it and HMRC are no longer the custodians of tax collections but rather a new "force" who have the power to interpret the tax system in any way they deem fit when they find the legislation is deficient.

His view was that the letter of the law no longer applies but rather how it is interpreted and that HMRC have been given the powers to do just that. The interesting slant was that by making the tax system so complex, it needs interpretation to work but rather than use the judiciary to do that, HMRC make it up as they go along and enact legislation when they have fixed any glitches.

And that was before I mentioned BN66 to him.

His reply was along the lines that "retrospection exists to fix past mistakes in the tax system which would never have been there if the tax system had been made simple in the first place."

When I told him how long it took HMRC to do something about the scheme whilst it was always transparent, he noted that it took the same amount of time to defeat Nazi Germany!

Many of his friends have moved out of the UK just because of all the uncertainty. Thanks Labour. You have created a tax monster and HMRC are given the powers to let it roam rather than to tame it.

[Toocan]

DR,

I am a little suprised about what HMRC are doing about their recent 'victory' ...

While there are appeals to the decision it would be difficult for HMRC to collect any tax - this is because it is still in the Courts (which overrules any HMRC policy). In addition, there are other JR's in the pipeline at the present time.

It is interesting that Stephen Timms has not made his usual victory speech - could this be because this matter has become a political hot potato?

[BolshieBastard]

Yes they were. And they worked



Mine wasn't, nor were a lot of people's.

In this atmosphere, the MP scheme did

Not saying it didn't. Perhaps not the best option, that's all: I looked at it and some thers, and stuck with my UK LtdCo. Others didn't. Doesn;t make either one of us right.



If you don't understand the opposing views and what it is you are up against, you won't be properly prepared and you won't win anything. If you don't recognise help when it's offered, that's your problem, but don't bitch about those trying to offer it. The case against retrospection will eventually hinge on how supportable the MP scheme was.

As for "Why am I here", I bailed out when people stuck their fingers in their ears and stopped listening. Hwever eeverything I said might happen has happened. Go figure.

Listen you ******* moron, you dont seem to get it do you? I dont know what perverse pleasure you get posting in this thread pontificating people should have done this, that or the other.

Im no tax expert. I depend on other people giving me qualitative information on which I can make a reasoned decision on.

I didnt go blindly into the MP scheme. I and others actually did some investigation into it. We found the scheme was legal. By whatever means, uK Governments had made a mistake in the DTA and created a loophole.

To some people, there's no difference between evasion and avoidance but the fact is, the law does make a distinction. The scheme was legal and stayed legal until retrospective tax law change was made nearly 8 years after the loophole came to HMRC's attention.

If, HMRC had of closed the loophole when they first knew about it, I wouldnt have continued to use the scheme. But they didnt. And, they couldnt tell me why not to use the scheme other than 'er, we dont think you're paying enough tax.'

Well they would say that wouldnt they?

But why should I change not just my tax planning but anything I do just because some official body says 'We dont think you should do this or that but we cant tell you why you shouldnt do it.?

This is a whole new ball game now. Its not about HMRC's ability to collect taxes. Its about their (and Government's) ability and willingness to use retrospectic changes of any law to their advantage.

I am not in the position of possibly losing my house over this although I will be a few grand down but, my heart goes out to those people who may. The strain must be intolerable and its more intolerable because tits like you want to score some petty point on a forum?

Go **** yourself. And do it painfully.

[Toocan]

The result of Gordon's Greed

The harder HMRC squeeze, the less they will get:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle7026265.ece

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Government can learn from rugby

Did anyone watch the Wales v Scotland game yesterday?

I remember one commentator saying that Scotland had their "fair share" of chances. But they lost. And because the game was played by the written rules (sorry to any Scots, just making a comparison).

So what should be done? Should the ref have thrown the rule book away and given more of a "share" of chances? Well yes, if you're Scottish perhaps. But then what's the point of a rule book if the ref can grant fairness rather than apply the rules?

Rugby would be the poorer for any such application of the rules. God forbid, "fair shares" of yesterdays game were to be decided 6 years after the match. The SIX NATIONS would be a laughing stock. Oh, sorry, THIS NATION has become a laughing stock.

Getting ready to watch Italy v England now and see how the ref interprets "fair share" of chances, possession, territory etc as opposed to the rule book. I hope he didn't used to work for HMRC...

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

The harder HMRC squeeze, the less they will get:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle7026265.ece

Good observation Toocan. HMRC will probably ask for legislation to generate a 1 billion quid tax levy at the airport as "departure tax".

Oops, given them an idea...