BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Boycie]

I've already voted but was just curious about the third option "N/A". When would N/A apply? Assuming this poll is for MP clients only then the question is straightforward yes or no. Anyone can give an example of N/A?

On an unrelated subject, apologies to my better half for ... I know this is the quickest way to get a message to her

Doesn't the question assume you have (own) a home in the first place? If you're renting and have no assets, how do you vote? N/A seems the likely response.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The current lowering of morale in my case is arising from the increasingly pervasive HMRC strategy of closing any and all avoidance strategies and branding them artificial. We have seen Image Rights, non-domicile guidance, bonuses provided as shares all attacked during the last week - and probably many more still to come. All of these planning strategies are now being smeared with the 'avoidance' epithet which has itself been traduced into an equivalence with 'evasion'. The HMRC attacks are also being applied retrospectively on the grounds that the planning strategies are contrived purely to avoid paying the tax due. Since when was that wrong? The tax wasn't due in the past.

At least our case is more clear cut ie. they changed the law backwards.

Those who relied on non-statutory HMRC guidance are in a much more invidious position.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Doesn't the question assume you have (own) a home in the first place? If you're renting and have no assets, how do you vote? N/A seems the likely response.

Thank you. I knew there was a reason I included N/A. Some people told me they'd already sold up and moved into rented accommodation, and others were holding back on buying a house.

[BolshieBastard]

I don't think the poll is having any influence on morale overall. Those that have voted probably ignore it in the header location, yet those still to vote have the status readily visible.

The current lowering of morale in my case is arising from the increasingly pervasive HMRC strategy of closing any and all avoidance strategies and branding them artificial. We have seen Image Rights, non-domicile guidance, bonuses provided as shares all attacked during the last week - and probably many more still to come. All of these planning strategies are now being smeared with the 'avoidance' epithet which has itself been traduced into an equivalence with 'evasion'. The HMRC attacks are also being applied retrospectively on the grounds that the planning strategies are contrived purely to avoid paying the tax due. Since when was that wrong? The tax wasn't due in the past.

Agree with this. And you can add in any advice that your accountant (and virtually anyone else) who gives you tax planning advice that nosey lot at hMRC can now ask to see.

There is a massive drive to make legal tax avoidance as decreed by the High Court, into tax evasion.

I used to work in the civil service and never really held with the view that civil servant didnt pay tax.

In over 10 years since I left, I've paid tens of thousands of pounds in corporation tax, VAT and yes, NI Conts. All of that generated by me because I took a decision to leave the civil service. If I'd have stayed in the civil service, hmrc and its incumbents who have got a big fat zero in tax receipts from me.

So, you not only generate wealth and tax receipts for them and they still want more.

Well how about more of them get off their fat lazy arses and create some wealth themselves?

[not-a-penny]

Thank you. I knew there was a reason I included N/A. Some people told me they'd already sold up and moved into rented accommodation, and others were holding back on buying a house.

I guess there is a chance that some of these N/A people really belong to the Yes camp because they will loose everything even if it does not include a house.

[not-a-penny]

I agree.

The case will take several years typically. Its likely to go more quickly as my HMRC insiders are saying that they want to pursue this quickly.

You have to consider another scenario ladies and gents that should HMRC lose ultimately, then its VERY likely they will legislate again....

What I can positively say is that I personally know 3 QC's in prestigious London Chambers who are all engaged on various matters around this case. They are in addition to the ones that DonkeyR states at the top of this thread...

Mr Jones, I presume !!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I guess there is a chance that some of these N/A people really belong to the Yes camp because they will loose everything even if it does not include a house.

True. The main reason I framed the question in terms of the "home" was that it puts it in very simple terms that everyone can relate to.

Obviously it wouldn't be realistic to extrapolate the figure of 60% to infer that 1500 out of the total 2500 people who used the scheme could lose their home.

However, it must run into several hundred.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Mr Jones, I presume !!

My sources say more than likely.

[KiwiGuy]

Thank you. I knew there was a reason I included N/A. Some people told me they'd already sold up and moved into rented accommodation, and others were holding back on buying a house.

Yep thats Me

[poppy01]

My sources say more than likely.

that's his fourth incarnation isn't it? (I'm including northernsouls 'chum')
is that quadpolar syndrome?