Originally posted by swede
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
-
SquickerSquicker
- Thanks (Given):
- 0
- Thanks (Received):
- 0
- Likes (Given):
- 0
- Likes (Received):
- 0
-
Originally posted by Squicker View PostIn the pub celebrating? Or face down in the Thames?Comment
-
Originally posted by swede View Post...or banged up having accosted men in nylon suits for lying their faces off.Comment
-
put em all in orange uniforms, leg irons and ship em off to guantanamo bay! thats what they deserve after all these lies and coverups...Comment
-
Originally posted by loftedtag View PostAgreed BarCapBoyz "retrospection could have been anticipated" seemed to be one of Parkers main points. I don't agree with Parker in how could we have anticipated retro since HMRC did not make us aware of Padmore until 2008, late 2008 in my case. Even then I don't remember them mentioning Padmore was retro and as a number of posters have said it might have been a retro act but was never enforced retrospectively. It would be nice to have consistancy with Padmore with no retrospective application in our case. Surely that would be equitable.
One question BarCapBoyz - what were the previous challenges to retrospection that lost? Where these taxation?
http://taxjournal.com/tj/articles/an...an-rights-s-45Comment
-
Playing Scum's Advocate
I agree with previous postings that no-one in a million years would have thought they would legislate retrospectively, but, I don't believe that's the issue.
It almost seems to be that the law is saying, if you're clever enough to use this loophole to avoid tax, you ought to be clever enough to be aware, thanks to Padmore and other cases, of the *possibility* of retrospection, no matter how obscure or irrelevant that piece of case law may be.
And it is the existence of that (albeit remote) possibility that dictates that the retrospection is [just about, by the skin of its teeth] proportional, and therefore not in violation of A1P1.
That is kind of what I expect the scum to argue...Last edited by TheBarCapBoyz; 4 November 2010, 18:50.Comment
-
Of course the counter-argument to this is that, since every piece of tax legislation exists within this domain, you could argue that *any* tax law could be changed retrospectively in situations where taxpayers are using the law in a way "not intended by parliament", which is why the scum are licking their lips, and the entire tax planning industry is praying it is defeated.Comment
-
Originally posted by TheBarCapBoyz View PostOf course the counter-argument to this is that, since every piece of tax legislation exists within this domain, you could argue that *any* tax law could be changed retrospectively in situations where taxpayers are using the law in a way "not intended by parliament", which is why the scum are licking their lips, and the entire tax planning industry is praying it is defeated.Comment
-
SquickerSquicker
- Thanks (Given):
- 0
- Thanks (Received):
- 0
- Likes (Given):
- 0
- Likes (Received):
- 0
Originally posted by slogger View PostArgument from link to tax journal seems to suggest that retrospection can be applied to artificial arrangements ... What's artificial ffs - anything done within the law, out in the open and without duplicity is surely legitimate and not artificial..Comment
-
Originally posted by TheBarCapBoyz View PostOf course the counter-argument to this is that, since every piece of tax legislation exists within this domain, you could argue that *any* tax law could be changed retrospectively in situations where taxpayers are using the law in a way "not intended by parliament", which is why the scum are licking their lips, and the entire tax planning industry is praying it is defeated.
It's a sorry state of affairs but in our case, retrospection has been used for one simple reason only - to get Hector off the hook for not having a clue what to do for 7 years and were being payed for that. So don't worry about their claims of "moving swiftly" to close loopholes. It's better to let the deficit mount for a few years then use the loss to the Exchequer line to justify retrospection. If HMRC was a private company, there'd be nobody working there as they'd all be fired for gross incompetence. But don't worry, we're all in it together according to the Government. Yeah right.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