BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Morlock]

I've got a baaa-d feeling about this one...

"A crack team of tax experts has been formed to investigate whether introducing a General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) would be an effective way of tackling tax avoidance or instead a legislative nightmare which will leave the UK’s freelancers, contractors and small business owners in a state of bewilderment."

new-anti-avoidance-team-seeks-ir35-alternative

[SantaClaus]

There we go that bl00dy word 'fair' quoted again in this report, come on Hector (HMRC spokesman) define it !!!

HMRC and our previous govt. completely bastardised the word "fairness".

It no longer means the same thing. Maybe Oxford English dictionary will update it's definition.

[Toocan]

HMRC and our previous govt. completely bastardised the word "fairness".

It no longer means the same thing. Maybe Oxford English dictionary will update it's definition.

They did a similar exercise on "hard working families" and "progressive". They had a lot of difficulty with language in general - any of them care to tell us the difference between evasion and avoidance - because the former government didn't know and the current HMRC don't know.

Someone needs to tell them....

[Emigre]

They did a similar exercise on "hard working families" and "progressive". They had a lot of difficulty with language in general - any of them care to tell us the difference between evasion and avoidance - because the former government didn't know and the current HMRC don't know.

Someone needs to tell them....

Hi Toucan

Someone did but Greedy Gordy ignored him. See my signature...

[pastalista]

Hi Toucan

Someone did but Greedy Gordy ignored him. See my signature...

Trouble is, people tell me that smoking 20 a day is bad for me. I know it to be probably true but it doesn't stop me from smoking.

So it is with Hector - he knows tax planning isn't avoidance, and avoidance isn't evasion but it doesn't stop him behaving like it is.

Only one course of action leads, potentially, to chronic desease.

There's no justice, is there?

Pastalista

[Emigre]

Trouble is, people tell me that smoking 20 a day is bad for me. I know it to be probably true but it doesn't stop me from smoking.

So it is with Hector - he knows tax planning isn't avoidance, and avoidance isn't evasion but it doesn't stop him behaving like it is.

Only one course of action leads, potentially, to chronic desease.

There's no justice, is there?

Pastalista

Arguably, by smoking you are paying your "fair share of tax". Maybe I should duck now and wait for the flack...

By electing to smoke you are paying, provided it is properly sourced tobacco, taxes that the Govt has set, that in their intent and opinion provides an acceptable level of financial compensation for all the negatives that get regularly trotted out about smokers and smoking. Hey, you're transparent about it too.

The DTA is all about preventing people paying tax twice. We already paid it in the IOM on some of our income and in the UK on the balance. We have been totally transparent about what we have done but the last Govt decided that what was written in statute, already at the second time of drafting, was not enough. You'd think that when someone has two cracks at the whip they'd at least be able to get it right the second time. Well Hector, you had the second crack back in 1988 and it was quite clear what the intent of Parliament was at that time - the legislation that was put in place at that time.

Dear Hector. Your efforts to extract additional tax from us is nothing other than fraudulent, deceitful, and frankly Third World doing nothing other than bringing the UK down below the level expected of it on the world stage.

Because of the woeful inaccuracies in my personal Closure Notices I would actually be better off declaring my income under the Liechenstein amnesty (available to those declaring evasion revenues) than the route that you have unilaterally decided I should be taxed. I entered into tax planning, not aggressive avoidance and not evasion. You are a joke, the lot of you. You should be banged up for the lies, the deceit, the encouragement to mislead Parliament and that tosser that spends his life dining out on the taxpayer, yes Hartnett that is you I'm talking about, should be chastised and abused in exactly the same way as your henchmen have abused us.

It seems to be ok to charge £26k of entertainment to the taxpayer. I probably accumulated that over Friday lunchtimes in the last 8 years so will do the same. You preach fairness? Please define. Oh, and please do so fairly, thanks!

[pastalista]

The Egyptian Solution

Arguably, by smoking you are paying your "fair share of tax". Maybe I should duck now and wait for the flack...

By electing to smoke you are paying, provided it is properly sourced tobacco, taxes that the Govt has set, that in their intent and opinion provides an acceptable level of financial compensation for all the negatives that get regularly trotted out about smokers and smoking. Hey, you're transparent about it too.

The DTA is all about preventing people paying tax twice. We already paid it in the IOM on some of our income and in the UK on the balance. We have totally transparent about what we have done but the last Govt decided that what was written in statute, already at the second time of drafting, was not enough. You'd think that when someone has two cracks at the whip they'd at least be able to get it right the second time. Well Hector, you had the second crack back in 1988 and it was quite clear what the intent of Parliament was at that time - the legislation that was put in place at that time.

Dear Hector. Your efforts to extract additional tax from us is nothing other than fraudulent, deceitful, and frankly Third World doing nothing other than bringing the UK down below the level expected of it on the world stage.

Because of the woeful inaccuracies in my personal Closure Notices I would actually be better off declaring my income under the Liechenstein amnesty than the route that you have unilaterally decided I should be taxed. I enetered into tax planning, not aggressive avaoidance and not evasion. You are a joke, the lot of you. You should be banged up for the lies, the deceit, the encouragement to mislead Parliament and that tosser that spends his life dining out on the taxpayer, yes Hartnett that is you I'm talking about, should be chastised and abused in exactly the same way as your henchmen have abused us.

It seems to be ok to charge £26k of entertainment to the taxpayer. I probably accumulated that over Friday lunchtimes in the last 8 years so will do the same. You preach fairness? Please define. Oh, and please do so fairly, thanks!

The Egyptian solution anybody? Part of the reason that we find ourselves in this position is that we are apathetic (about direct action). We'll do the court thing of course but I favour the more direct approach.

Maybe Hector would think twice if he saw a few baton wielding maniacs on camels headed his way. Oh, and Parliament as well.

Fair? They don't know what fair is. Maybe it's time we levelled the playing field a little?

Pastalista

[Lazylobster]

Well, 3 months plus and no news is good news ?

Good weekend y'all . . .

LL

[Slobbo]

If I don't smoke and don't drink much or often does that mean I am aggressively avoiding uk tax? Because after all it is a revenue earning tax for the UK so it must mean I am deliberately avoiding tax. In fact in the case of smoking I must be evading tax and that is illegal. Come get me HMRC and lock me up because I am a non smoker and evading my FAIR share of the UK tobacco tax.

[Slobbo]

Interesting clause in my renewal contract

What do you guys make of this then?

"The Contractor shall ensure, throughout the term, that neither it nor any of its affiliates or any subcontractors, employees or persons to whom the contractor make payment in relation to the services has in place any arrangement involving the use of any scheme to avoid paying UK tax by diverting income of a UK resident individual to a non UK resident company, partnership or trust of the payments made under this agreement or on any transaction connected with or resulting from the Agreement or the services. This clause shall apply where liability for a UK tax and National Insurance Contributions would exist were the UK resident person to be employed directly by agency/client and whether or not the Contractor is based in the UK"

Reckon HMRC forced this on the agency?