BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Slobbo]

The thing that sticks in my throat is Parker stating our scheme is wholly artificial with no commercial purpose but to avoid tax. By implication an ISA must also fall into that category, it serves no commercial purpose but to avoid tax..so I await ISA's being made retrospectively illegal, surely the same rules must apply across the board, not selectively

So is Gift Aid is it not

[OnYourBikeGB]

Snigger, just listening to Brown at the Iraq enquiry. Seems the MOD were 'playing the system' to screw the Treasury for extra money. Fair play to them, but I bet he didn't have the balls to snatch that money back, they have tanks.

[KiwiGuy]

Great Idea

For those who are going to go bankrupt (in the unlikely case the HMRC will win),

maybe you should get all the money that the HMRC can get and gift it to "Children in need", i can see the headlines now "HMRC Takes money from needy children"

when they interview you, you say "Well i thought the money would be better managed to help children than second homes for MPs"

[Slobbo]

For those who are going to go bankrupt (in the unlikely case the HMRC will win),

maybe you should get all the money that the HMRC can get and gift it to "Children in need", i can see the headlines now "HMRC Takes money from needy children"

when they interview you, you say "Well i thought the money would be better managed to help children than second homes for MPs"

There could actually be some merit in that. Although you'd probably have to do it before the bankruptcy.

If I was going under I might be tempted to do something like that. Problem is they'd probably invent some new legislation and say it had always applied and I'd end up in prison. Then again that'd be 3 square meals and they pay you for being in there. Then probably take most it away again in tax

[johnnyguitar]

bankruptcy

So, old Grant Bovey & Anthea Turner have declared themselves bankrupt, as their 'business' didn't pan out as well as they'd hoped. And, according to the tabloids, are off on a little holiday to de-stress.
I'm also guessing they they won't lose their house etc
So, how do they manage to go bankrupt and keep stuff ? Should we me employing the services of some rather clever people that specialise in 'debt minimisation' ?

[KiwiGuy]

So, old Grant Bovey & Anthea Turner have declared themselves bankrupt, as their 'business' didn't pan out as well as they'd hoped. And, according to the tabloids, are off on a little holiday to de-stress.
I'm also guessing they they won't lose their house etc
So, how do they manage to go bankrupt and keep stuff ? Should we me employing the services of some rather clever people that specialise in 'debt minimisation' ?

Simple, cause Gordo only ruines the little peoples lives

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Something to start the weekend with

A self-employed Panda goes on the town on Friday night. He ends up at a sleazy hooker's house (No. 10). He pops in and asks if he can have some favours.

One of the hookers duly obliges. As he's also rather hungry, he gets a nice sandwich to start with followed by the 'extras'. When the deed is done, the Panda gets up, puts on his hat and heads for the door.

The Hooker none too pleased yells at him "hey, the rules are you pay your fair share for that so you can't avoid paying. Thats the definition of what we Hookers expect!"

The Panda turns round and with a smile says, "Yeah? Well look up the definition of Panda - eats shoots and leaves!".


Just goes to prove how anything can have different meanings for everyone, including Pandas...

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Enjoy!

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/pbr2009/prote...venue-5450.pdf

You need to study the diagram on p.7. Note the quote "Compliance with letter and spirit of the law". My emphasis. There you see the Avoidance piece. But as of yet, I'm still to see that the letter of the law has actually been applied here. So rather misleading since only "spirit" (or ghosts) have thus far come rattling their chains.

P.12 has a rather nice Catherine Wheel on it and oh look, Avoidance and Evasion both come in at 17.5% alike (oddly the same as VAT %).

But I've saved the best til the last.

P.14 Box 5.1 - "In 2009 Ministers were able to act within 5 days of receiving intelligence to announce legislation, with immediate effect, to close down schemes that sought to generate artificial employment losses."

5 days??? Crickey, only a year earlier it had taken them more than 5 years since receiving "intelligence" to do something. Oh and also with "immediate effect". Scanned the doc for the word 'retrospection'. Nicht, nada, nowt.

Yet another glossy, but has zip to do with where the rubber meets the road. Probably cost around 200M quid to produce though...

Don't know about Tax Gap. I'm rather more concerned about the Gap between the ears of the authors.

[BolshieBastard]

More HMRC incompetence.

Yes, here's yet another example of incompetence by HMRC. I havent posted it 'as it happened' but rather waited a few weeks. Call me paranoid but the delay in reporting may make it harder for them to identify me through the circumstances as I know the incompetents read these threads!

Got my CTD sorted after reading the instructions on HMRC's site about how to make a payment for a CTD. After making the payment, I sent a letter as instructed giving my details also as directed on HMRC's website. Later I got my certificate from those awfully nice people in Cumbernauld and filed it away.

Sometime later I received an evelope from somewhere in north east England. Strange, I didnt recall expecting anything from that area. Opens it up and its a letter from those awfully nice people in Cumbernauld.

Only the letter inside is addressed to the financial institution I used to pay for the CTD. Transpires they have forwarded it to me.

It then quotes a name shall we say similar to mine saying they (HMRC) cannot determine what the payment of x thousand pounds is for. Would I give my full name and address, confirm from a list what the payment is in respect of, my NINO and home telephone number.

The letter is clearly for me as the amount in question is the amount I paid.

Now what I cannot fathom is this; HMRC sent the letter to the financial institution as they couldnt determine what the payment was for, the correct name of who the payment was in respect of etc.

However, the financial institution could figure out who the payment was from (me!) and they didnt have the benefit of a follow up letter by me telling them my name, address and other details.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

PwC case

Although it was understood to be taking place tomorrow, it could be held on Wednesday.

The timing may also be affected by this strike action.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8554345.stm