Originally posted by MajorGowen
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
-
-
Anyone out there in david gauke's constituency ?????
Originally posted by smalldog View PostHi Major, Im with you on that one. We should have a call to arms, Im keen to get something moving, bombard him, demo outside his surgery anything....its shocking behaviour and we shouldnt just roll over....
He really does seem to have sold out, which (again me being naive) I find hard to believe as he spoke so well against this whilst opposing it.
This will obviously now go all the way. I expect we will lose in court case in November, then I'm not sure where the next step is - maybe House of Lords. We could have some joy there, as you can be sure that a lot of them have their finances tied up by Tax Consultants. Otherwise it's off to the European Courts, with the interest ever mounting. I can't afford a CTD so am stuck with an ever mounting debtLast edited by MajorGowen; 30 July 2010, 12:00.Comment
-
Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View PostSadly, when it comes down to it, we were just plain unlucky.
Other schemes have not fallen to the same fate, and it was just our misfortune to be on the receiving end of the last throes of a Labour Government which had been corrupted by power for 10 years.
HMRC simply took advantage of the situation knowing full well that the Government would be more than willing participants in this travesty of justice.
Now we are forced to try and obtain justice through the courts, which is a huge mountain to climb.
Anyone remember being told there would never be more than 500 users?Comment
-
Originally posted by ContractIn View PostI'm pretty sure I know why we ended up on HMRC's radar.
Anyone remember being told there would never be more than 500 users?
The higher number possibly set the sirens off, but cannot justify the retrospective changing of the law.Comment
-
Originally posted by MajorGowen View PostThe number I was told was 1000.
The higher number possibly set the sirens off, but cannot justify the retrospective changing of the law.Comment
-
Originally posted by ContractIn View PostI'm pretty sure I know why we ended up on HMRC's radar.
Anyone remember being told there would never be more than 500 users?Comment
-
Originally posted by helen7 View PostOh yes, I was told by Watkins himself that it was strickly limited to 500 users and that the Arsenal football team was using it.Comment
-
Originally posted by helen7 View PostOh yes, I was told by Watkins himself that it was strickly limited to 500 users and that the Arsenal football team was using it.
Maybe they all joined after that?Comment
-
It wouldn't have mattered if Montp had capped the numbers because people would have gone to deGraaf, Steed etc.
At the end of the day, it was HMRC who allowed it to snowball.
If they'd closed the loophole in 2002 when they published TE63 then the tax loss would have been peanuts.
If they'd closed it in 2003 when they settled with SM and saw the first Montp returns then it would have been a minor issue.
Even if they'd delayed until FA 2004 the tax loss would have been relatively modest.
HMRC only have themselves to blame for it getting out of hand.Comment
-
Arctic Systems case
(Something which might make you feel a bit more hopeful.)
As someone with an analytical background, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me that two courts can reach completely opposite conclusions on the same case.
But thank goodness this is possible!!!
Arctic Systems ' What next?
"It is probably fair to say that the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Jones v Garnett (colloquially, Arctic Systems) came as a considerable surprise to most of us.Mr Justice Park in the High Court had been unequivocal in finding for the Inspector of Taxes and the chances for the appeal looked very thin."
Have a read of the first 2 paragraphs of this article, and note the certainty of the High Court judge in his ruling. Sound familiar?
http://www.murraystable.com/assets/f...20fall-out.pdfComment
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