BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[cojak]

Another newbie here as well. Recently received the request for all financial info for last 6 years. Primarily I assume due to tax efficient schemes. The letter may be a standard one being issued at the moment - starts off referencing my last tax return but goes on to request docs for 6 years and throws in the name and shame threat for good measure - will be a lot of reading for someone at HMRC! The request was primarily sent to my accountant with a copy sent to me.

History: previously employed by Actinium and now by Hamilton Trust.

Anyone else with similar history who is ahead of me in the process - would appreciate a PM so we can maybe share experience and possibly save some grief.

cheers + good luck yo you all.

JAC

Just Another Contractor

I've asked Admin to give you PM rights jac.

And you Johnnycomelately.

[StellaFan]

Btw, HMRC know exactly who I am so there's no point me trying to hide. I'm actually quite suprised they haven't trumped up charges to have me arrested yet.

I'm surprised you haven't 'disappeared' !

[Morlock]

The way I see it, Labour just rubber stamped what HMRC asked for, and then used their majority to rail road it through Parliament.

Yes they do have responsibility but I am in no doubt whatsoever that the real villains are HMRC.

I don't dispute that HMRC was involved in drafting the legislation, but that surely is one of the functions of a civil service, and they wouldn't have done so without political direction (or at the very least, collusion). I would draw a parallel with the war in Iraq:
Tony Blair asked the MOD to draw up invasion plans, lots of spin-doctoring happened, parliament was misled and then it voted for military action which was duly implemented. But you wouldn't ultimately blame the MOD for the resulting fiasco?
The point I want to make is that I think it's misguided for people to heap all the blame on HMRC as an entity. Over the last 9 years the various office holders will have rotated many times, and there simply isn't any one set of individuals in the department who can be held responsible. Undoubtedly there are some vindictive jobsworths involved, but it's really their political masters and our own MPs who have done the dirty on us.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I don't dispute that HMRC was involved in drafting the legislation, but that surely is one of the functions of a civil service, and they wouldn't have done so without political direction (or at the very least, collusion). I would draw a parallel with the war in Iraq:
Tony Blair asked the MOD to draw up invasion plans, lots of spin-doctoring happened, parliament was misled and then it voted for military action which was duly implemented. But you wouldn't ultimately blame the MOD for the resulting fiasco?
The point I want to make is that I think it's misguided for people to heap all the blame on HMRC as an entity. Over the last 9 years the various office holders will have rotated many times, and there simply isn't any one set of individuals in the department who can be held responsible. Undoubtedly there are some vindictive jobsworths involved, but it's really their political masters and our own MPs who have done the dirty on us.

Have a read of this. It might change your mind.

http://wimg.co.uk/MWG.pdf

Warning: do not read it if you suffer from high blood pressure.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

More background reading

While I'm about it, you might find these related documents illuminating.

http://wimg.co.uk/d53.pdf
http://wimg.co.uk/pcr.pdf

NB. As per previous post, same health warning applies to those suffering from high blood pressure.

[Morlock]

Have a read of this. It might change your mind.

http://wimg.co.uk/MWG.pdf

Warning: do not read it if you suffer from high blood pressure.

Well. My blood pressure hasn't gone so high since I stopped reading the Daily Mail on medical advice.
I would love to have a square go with this Simon Davis character under the Queensbury rules but since his wrist is probably limper than Walter the Softie's it probably wouldn't be much fun. Clearly he was bullied at school, and I suspect the only satisfaction he gets out of life now is to try and beat his wife after he's had one too many Babychams at the Rotary Club annual dinner. What a tosser.

I hereby unreservedly withdraw any remarks I've made which may have inadvertently appeared to downplay HMRC's role in the BN66 legislation, on the grounds that any persons who may have read those remarks either knew, or should have known, that there was a strong likelihood that I would backtrack from my original position, and that such backtracking when enacted would almost certainly be done retrospectively. By so doing, I am simply making clear explicitly something which was already clear implicitly, and am thereby restoring my original intention, namely to express my utter contempt for all the slimy, conniving bastards at HMRC. Given the scale of the connivance, and the sums involved, I believe that retrospection in these circumstances is a proportionate response.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Well. My blood pressure hasn't gone so high since I stopped reading the Daily Mail on medical advice.
I would love to have a square go with this Simon Davis character under the Queensbury rules but since his wrist is probably limper than Walter the Softie's it probably wouldn't be much fun. Clearly he was bullied at school, and I suspect the only satisfaction he gets out of life now is to try and beat his wife after he's had one too many Babychams at the Rotary Club annual dinner. What a tosser.

I hereby unreservedly withdraw any remarks I've made which may have inadvertently appeared to downplay HMRC's role in the BN66 legislation, on the grounds that any persons who may have read those remarks either knew, or should have known, that there was a strong likelihood that I would backtrack from my original position, and that such backtracking when enacted would almost certainly be done retrospectively. By so doing, I am simply making clear explicitly something which was already clear implicitly, and am thereby restoring my original intention, namely to express my utter contempt for all the slimy, conniving bastards at HMRC. Given the scale of the connivance, and the sums involved, I believe that retrospection in these circumstances is a proportionate response.

I thought it might have that effect. You should read the other 2 PDFs as well.

It is interesting when you said that politicians were responsible. These aren't politicians but they'd make damn "good" ones wouldn't they?

What's that famous phrase "economical with the truth".

[rosebud]

While I'm about it, you might find these related documents illuminating.

http://wimg.co.uk/d53.pdf
http://wimg.co.uk/pcr.pdf

NB. As per previous post, same health warning applies to those suffering from high blood pressure.

Does this mean that this is it? No more hope for us?

[javadude]

Interesting that HMRC justify the retrospective change of law on their assumption that we would all be expecting this. I wasn't. I suspect that no-one was. Mr Davis also says that we were made aware by HMRC that we needed to put money aside. I wasn't until a year after the law change and so far have been given no indication by them of how much this would be.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Download and save these PDFs

Just in case I'm next to get raided...

http://wimg.co.uk/MWG.pdf
http://wimg.co.uk/d53.pdf
http://wimg.co.uk/pcr.pdf