Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Topic is closed
-
-
Letters
For the next couple of weeks, I will list the various letter templates in my signature below.Comment
-
Comment
-
Letter to MP
Originally posted by toaster View Post
Original and follow-up sent to Dominic Raab M.P. (Esher & Walton)
M
Also sent email copy of letter to Treasury marked for George Osbourne's attention. I am getting ready to send letter no2, but hopefully they will see the light and undue S58.Comment
-
A bit of healthy pessimism
Some people have expressed pessimism to me about whether the Government will actually do anything, and I can understand this. I too am pessimistic. No-one wants to get their hopes up only to have them dashed.
However, even if the Government don't act on this occasion, there are still positives to be drawn from this exercise.
1. Keeping the issue alive
Every time we write, it reminds them we haven't gone away, and that we can't afford to go away.
2. Getting them to say where they stand
So far, not a single MP has received a written reply from a Minister (like we used to get from Kennedy and Timms). This doesn't suprise me. However, they won't be able to remain silent forever, and eventually they will have to come out and say where they stand on s.58. It would be extremely bizarre if they supported it now, when they voiced so much opposition at the time, and both Tories and Libdems unanimously voted against it.
3. Moving a step closer
Contrary to what they say, I don't believe that the main obstacle to repeal is the state of the public finances. They know that repealing it will have a negligible effect going forward. In any case, there is nothing to stop HMRC pursuing us on the basis of the law as it was prior to 2008.
No, the main obstacle is public opinion. They won't want to be seen as going soft on "tax avoiders" whilst bringing in swingeing cuts to public services.
If we were to get a positive result in the Court of Appeal in November, then this would give them an ideal opportunity to act without attracting adverse publicity. By writing now we are sowing the seeds for this.Comment
-
If bn66 was removed in the emergency budget what is the situation then?Regards
Slobbo
"Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege."Comment
-
Originally posted by Slobbo View PostIf bn66 was removed in the emergency budget what is the situation then?
(1) the retrospective component (s.58 paras 4 & 5)
(2) a prospective element which plugged the loophole going forward
Of course, they would only repeal (1), and the effect of this would be to return the law prior to March 2008 to what it was before BN66.
HMRC would then be perfectly within their rights to take us to the tax courts on the basis of the previous law.
This is how it has to be, and should be. We cannot and should not expect any more than this.
This would give us back the justice we should have been entitled to at the time.Comment
-
Ok so this is the bit that confuses me. The retrospective element is because they believe the 87 legislation always applied. If they took it to the tax courts would it not be arguing the same point of law. If the tax courts agreed with the revenue would we not be in the same situation? Facing years of back taxes?Regards
Slobbo
"Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege."Comment
-
Originally posted by Slobbo View PostOk so this is the bit that confuses me. The retrospective element is because they believe the 87 legislation always applied. If they took it to the tax courts would it not be arguing the same point of law. If the tax courts agreed with the revenue would we not be in the same situation? Facing years of back taxes?
Remember, this didn't even occur to them until Autumn 2007. Prior to that, for several years, all they had put forward was Archer Shee etc. There was never any mention of 1987 or Padmore.
If the BN66-retro was repealed, I doubt very much they would take us to court on the basis of 1987-Padmore.
Personally, I would be more than happy to take my chances with the law as it was, and I know all the promoters feel the same way.Comment
-
Thanks DR. Just wondered. I am a fish out of water when it comes to this stuff. Lets face it the law, the interpretation of it and the processes around enforcement are not exactly straight forward. This whole situation was bought about through interpretation or mis-interpretation of the rules.Regards
Slobbo
"Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege."Comment
Topic is closed
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment