• 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
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    I am sure the butterflies are starting to flutter in everyones stomachs. I would just like to say keep your chins up and lets hope the judges are "fair" in their assessment. We all know that we are right in law but that the law seems to matter little. I for one hope we win not only because of the affect it will have myself and my loved ones but also because this whole situation makes a mockery of our parliamentary and legal systems.

    HMRC seem to be above the law. They can buy stolen documents without penalty (Stolen docs story), they will quite happily sell their own property to offshore tax evading interests if it makes them more money Offshore property mess story but the rest of us who work within the law are screwed or could be if the blood sucking leeches don't get all of our money.

    They get it anyway. Fuel taxes, VAT, property taxes, road taxes, income taxes, etc. There is not a single thing in our lives where they don't get their pound of flesh.

    One thing that irks me about all of this is that they can change the law now and make it retrospective but they won't let us form a limited companies retrospectively, submit the £1500 to £2000 a month expenses it costs me to work away from home retrospectively and pay only the 20% corporation tax on the dividends that we would have paid retrospectively. Nope as far as they are concerned it is all PAYE and they want everything. I would have run a Ltd company if it wasn't for the ridicules IR35 legislation and uncertainty it brought. They don't make it easy for any of us to work within the law and earn a worthwhile living. No certainty in our liabilities.

    HMRC stop wasting money persecuting the people your supposed to work for. Simplify the tax system and come up with a fair system which is consummate with the risks and compromises which people like us have to take. Don't expect us to pay the same as a full time employee when we don't get the holiday and sick pay, when we don't get the pension contributions and when we don't get the job security.

    Right I am getting off my soap box now because I am getting more and more annoyed.

    Here's hoping.
    Regards

    Slobbo

    "Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege."

    Comment


      Originally posted by Slobbo View Post
      One thing that irks me about all of this is that they can change the law now and make it retrospective but they won't let us form a limited companies retrospectively, submit the £1500 to £2000 a month expenses it costs me to work away from home retrospectively and pay only the 20% corporation tax on the dividends that we would have paid retrospectively. Nope as far as they are concerned it is all PAYE and they want everything. I would have run a Ltd company if it wasn't for the ridicules IR35 legislation and uncertainty it brought. They don't make it easy for any of us to work within the law and earn a worthwhile living. No certainty in our liabilities.
      And, as someone pointed out to me last week, we're not even able to use Government approved tax mitigation like making pension contributions to reduce the liability.

      HMRC have retrospectively amended our entire tax position but we can't change a thing.
      Last edited by DonkeyRhubarb; 1 November 2010, 13:11.

      Comment


        Hearing starts tomorrow

        (Still not sure if we're up first or PwC)

        Court Hearings - Court of Appeal Civil Division

        COURT 70
        Before LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY
        LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN and
        LORD JUSTICE TOMLINSON
        Tuesday, 2nd November, 2010
        Not Before half-past 10
        APPEALS

        From The Queen's Bench Division
        (Administrative Court and Divisional Court)
        FINAL DECISIONS
        C1/2010/0360 The Queen on the application of Huitson -v- Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Appeal of Claimant from the order of Mr Justice Kenneth Parker, dated 28th January 2010, filed 17th February 2010.
        C1/2009/1224 Queen on the Application of Shiner & anr -v- Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs. Appeal of Claimants from the order of Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, dated 3rd June 2009, filed 10th June 2009.

        Comment


          Originally posted by Slobbo View Post
          Don't expect us to pay the same as a full time employee when we don't get the holiday and sick pay, when we don't get the pension contributions and when we don't get the job security.
          same? I wish. With IR35 and on our closure notices they wanted us to pay employers' NI. What is that 12.5% or thereabouts?...

          Comment


            Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
            (Still not sure if we're up first or PwC)

            Court Hearings - Court of Appeal Civil Division

            COURT 70
            Before LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY
            LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN and
            LORD JUSTICE TOMLINSON
            Tuesday, 2nd November, 2010
            Not Before half-past 10
            APPEALS

            From The Queen's Bench Division
            (Administrative Court and Divisional Court)
            FINAL DECISIONS
            C1/2010/0360 The Queen on the application of Huitson -v- Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Appeal of Claimant from the order of Mr Justice Kenneth Parker, dated 28th January 2010, filed 17th February 2010.
            C1/2009/1224 Queen on the Application of Shiner & anr -v- Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs. Appeal of Claimants from the order of Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, dated 3rd June 2009, filed 10th June 2009.
            If anyone wants to do something that might improve the collective karma of the group, now might be the time to do it ;-)

            Comment


              Originally posted by screwthis View Post
              If anyone wants to do something that might improve the collective karma of the group, now might be the time to do it ;-)
              from BBC NEWS | Politics | Profile: Sir Jeremy Sullivan Re Lord Justice Sullivan "It is not the first time the High Court judge has clashed with ministers."

              Comment


                Originally posted by rosbiff View Post
                from BBC NEWS | Politics | Profile: Sir Jeremy Sullivan Re Lord Justice Sullivan "It is not the first time the High Court judge has clashed with ministers."
                That'll do. At least he's not a parker… sorry … I mean a puppet.

                Comment


                  What Have We Learned?

                  Originally posted by screwthis View Post
                  If anyone wants to do something that might improve the collective karma of the group, now might be the time to do it ;-)
                  As Churchill once said: "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm". In this respect, HMRC are the most enthusiastic bunch I've ever met.

                  Tomorrow we will once more play our dangerous game with the old adversary - HMRC. But what lessons have we learned since the High Court?

                  1. The legality of the scheme did not seem to be relevant at the HC.
                  2. Padmore never taxed anyone (retrospectively or otherwise)
                  3. 7 years of naval gazing by HMRC appeared lost on Parker
                  4. TE63 suggested that the scheme was legal and could not be defeated at the SC.
                  5. Parker is ex-HMRC - ouch!
                  6. We have 3 far more superior Judges at the CoA
                  7. Legitimate expectation was never once brought into the case at the HC.

                  Now the question. A1P1 grants the state a "wide margin of appreciation" on taxation. But how will "wide" be defined? If it includes your missus banging the milkman for 7 years and telling you every night how good it was and you only get off your sorry a*se when she gets all her friends into the action and decide to sue her for 7 years lost 'bedroom basics' then I'm sorry. If you felt that bothered, you should have done something about it from the off. And trying to "clarify" that 'for better or for worse" didn't include putting up with something legal that you didn't like as a reason for taking her to the cleaners is a pretty lame excuse from a very lame person.

                  The fact is this - HMRC knew what we were doing (because we told them). They didn't like it and said so. None of the reasons they gave included Padmore and even now, Padmore may not apply. So they re-invent Padmore and say that Parliaments intent was always so. Not according to the then Opposition during the debating stages HMRC. Nor Hansard from the Padmore era.

                  BN66 was born unto a barren Government, of a basta*d father, out of wedlock, in an orgy of enthusiasm to mask the infidelity that was HMRC's impotent failure to act.

                  If that is what the CoA considers as being within the wide margin of appreciation that God help us all. On the other hand, they might, just might, consider that such a bastardisation of our legislation has this time, gone one step too far.

                  Comment


                    This week

                    I'm aiming to roll up there on Wednesday work permitting. I'll be Sparticus!

                    Comment


                      What if HMRC ultimately win?

                      Well, they'll lose me. I will leave these shores legally and pay / be bankrupted as it comes. But I for one will have no plans to contribute to this country if this goes South. In the 13 years of Labours Experiment, they dumbed down our whole Social Fabric with sound bites such as "fair share" but woefully unable to qualify it. But, what this means and all the other rubbish they brought into existence was nothing more than taking us all down to the lowest common denominator. "Unacceptable" is now used where right and wrong once lived. So me and my family are agreed that we will leave. We won't run and hide or avoid the legal obligations. But we will surrender any notion of being part of this hideous society if retrospection is the cure for incompentence. And if this is the outcome, then I would renounce my citizenship at the first opportunity. That's my Plan B.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X