BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[slogger]

sad - but true

HMRC make it impossible to arrange your affairs in a legal manner when they simply change the rules retrospectively so that makes me think that if I was to have evaded tax instead avoided tax then I would be in a much better place because either a) they wouldn't know about it or b) they might know about it because they are in knowing receipt of stolen goods (and therefore breaking criminal law) so still in essence don't know about it or c) I could have fessed up (a couple of years ago) and obtained amnesty for the interest payments.

So I would have been better off by breaking the law.

Seems a bit backward to me and not exactly encouraging us to be law abiding citizens.

If we loose this then I will have lost faith in the legal system completely.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

HMRC make it impossible to arrange your affairs in a legal manner when they simply change the rules retrospectively so that makes me think that if I was to have evaded tax instead avoided tax then I would be in a much better place because either a) they wouldn't know about it or b) they might know about it because they are in knowing receipt of stolen goods (and therefore breaking criminal law) so still in essence don't know about it or c) I could have fessed up (a couple of years ago) and obtained amnesty for the interest payments.

So I would have been better off by breaking the law.

Seems a bit backward to me and not exactly encouraging us to be law abiding citizens.

If we loose this then I will have lost faith in the legal system completely.

Actually you may have a point. Given that avoidance and evasion are spoken about in the same way and terms such as agressive avoidance gets added into the mix, HMRC appear to be blending both into the same cocktail. Therefore, if true then you did fess up on every SAR you submitted. And therefore, you should not owe any interest!

On another point, I note that my CN states as the reason for it as being "now that Section 58...has become law...". I thought HMRC claimed it always was and BN66 just clarifies that point.

Subtle confusion of past and present tense even in the CN...

[screwthis]

Actually you may have a point. Given that avoidance and evasion are spoken about in the same way and terms such as agressive avoidance gets added into the mix, HMRC appear to be blending both into the same cocktail. Therefore, if true then you did fess up on every SAR you submitted. And therefore, you should not owe any interest!

On another point, I note that my CN states as the reason for it as being "now that Section 58...has become law...". I thought HMRC claimed it always was and BN66 just clarifies that point.

Subtle confusion of past and present tense even in the CN...

Exactly. It's a new law and therefore retrospective not retroactive.

[xantamisch]

New letter from you-know-who...............

.......... opening an enquiry into my 2008 - 2009 return.

Anyone else had this?

[RockTheBoat]

.......... opening an enquiry into my 2008 - 2009 return.

Anyone else had this?

Emigre has started a thread here

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...er-trusts.html

and dont forget the first rule about Loan Club

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

It's all Childs Play

On the weekend, my young daughter was getting near her bedtime and was playing with a puzzle. She got frustrated and chucked it across the room. She did something similar tonight with her musical Iggle Piggle. Now don't get me wrong, 99% of the time she's as good as gold, but when a little one is getting tired you can see what can happen. Clearly, unless you're from Pikey Land, that behaviour is unacceptable. Indeed abusive and aggressive. There's those words again.

Now in the first instance we simply took her up to bed as we didn't want the hassle. Tonight we chastised her and told her in no uncertain terms that the consequences of her unacceptable behaviour was that Iggle Piggle would be taken off her until she learned how to treat it. Naturally, she was not best pleased. But we applied skills we learned at a Positive Discipline class and therefore acted responsibly.

Why bore you with this tale of family hassles? Well, it's because of what my wife said afterwards. "If you were working for HMRC, you'd have chastised her twice and also taken her puzzle off her for the same unacceptable behaviour on the weekend".

The point? If you do something that is deemed unacceptable, aggressive and abusive and don't apply the proportionate punishment there and then, you are in fact sending out the signal that this will be tolerated. So you as responsible parents don't have the "human right" to inflict a punishment when it happens again and then apply it for when you had tolerated it. You'd even wonder if you'd call in Social Services.

This could equally be applied to our situation. So Uncle Hector doesn't make for a good parent in that case. What's the required equivalent of Social Service then? I presume A1P1.

Oh and in case anyone mentions enquiries into SAR's that never went anywhere, that's like telling a child that we're going to look into her behaviour and never tell them what we decided.

[SantaClaus]

Why bore you with this tale of family hassles? Well, it's because of what my wife said afterwards. "If you were working for HMRC, you'd have chastised her twice and also taken her puzzle off her for the same unacceptable behaviour on the weekend".

If you truly were HMRC, you'd would have chastised her for each time she threw Iggle Piggle out the pram for the past 8 years (or since birth). Now her card has been marked, you would subsequently open an enquiry into the loan of Upsy Daisy and Maca Paca from her friends to ensure that no other rules had been violated. All in the name of "fairness" of course.

Very apt analogies considering this is the "nanny state".

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

If you truly were HMRC, you'd would have chastised her for each time she threw Iggle Piggle out the pram for the past 8 years (or since birth). Now her card has been marked, you would subsequently open an enquiry into the loan of Upsy Daisy and Maca Paca from her friends to ensure that no other rules had been violated. All in the name of "fairness" of course.

Very apt analogies considering this is the "nanny state".

Santa, given that In the Night Garden is a purely fictional world, then I think BN66 belongs there also. Funnily enough, another mention from said spouse went along the lines that if 10 years ago you're friend give their kid a clip round the ear which was then acceptable and they told you so, would you now go round and bash them in the face for doing so because it is now unacceptable?

My previous post was not meant to be serious. It was just that there was an apparent parallel. But in reality, it does give rise to the nature of retrospection. Tomorrow I might call the HMRC SA Advice Line and ask them how to calculate my fair share of tax and what guideline to follow to know if what I'm doing is unacceptable. Actually, probably just send in my SAR as usual. Fully declared and transparent and wait for them to "take a swift response to deal with it" as the Disclosure Regime reckons it is there for. Not holding my breath given that 4 years before the DR (no offense DR using an abb) became a legal requirement, MontP were already doing it for HMRC. Anyways, Iggle Piggle is now back with Upsy Daisy or should that be Stephen and Jane??

[johnnyguitar]

new year, new contract...

so, after a long contract it's time to move on and also time to think about how to organise my affairs.
Since BN66, I've been more tempted by some of the schemes out there as a way of making up the potential loss that I'm facing - lightening striking twice ??
I was just curious, as a group of people that are facing some devasting tax bills, what the prefered option is: LTD company, umbrealla, loan-type scheme?
Harking back to the very reason I ended up in this mess, I would go for LTD company but there is still uncertainty about that with IR35.
What to do? Once bitten...

[TheBarCapBoyz]

(2) Assuming you mean TQ (not TW) then yes they are both still there.

The person who deals with the appeals is TW (Tom Whitely -with Natalie). TQ has nothing to do with it as far as I know.

Apologies for the confusion.