BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

What in this instance is a "win" for us?

I'm lightly affected by BN66 compared to some, as I was only in the scheme for a couple of years, but this experience has taught me that even if BN66 is somehow overturned. if somehow HMRC decide to back off, and remove their demand for tax, the level of stress, worry and uncertainty has simply not been worth the amount of money I might get back. It truly hasn't.

Montpelier have made the right noises and moves in fighting this, but ultimately they walk away with their millions in fees, and we the clients bear the stress and financial uncertainty.

In fact the only parties that seem to have benefited from IR35 and the various avoidance measures are the sodding bean-counters. Was not amused to read that the PCG is not committed to abolishing IR35, just attacking the status quo. Are the funded by contractors, or the accountants?

In short, I'd say a win for "us" goes far beyond the scheme users. If HMRC can get away with taking no action for 8 years on a scheme that was 100% transparent and legal and then simply choose to look through the arrangement so they can massage the scheme to "fit" Padmore, apply retrospective legislation that whilst they claim it is a clarification it is not since if the legislation is the same, then how can Padmore explicitly prevent retrospective tax whilst BN66 positively enforces it? Using such non legislative phrases as Public Policy is no excuse to roll back the clock and penalise people as a work around to ineptness.

I agree with your views and this has been and continues to be a terrible situation for so many. Allowing BN66 to stand has already given Hector enthusiasm to march on in other tax areas. Tax avoidance and especially transparent avoidance is NOT A CRIME. If HMRC don't like a given disclosed arrangement, then either take it to the Tax Courts or apply prospective legislation but don't sit doing nothing for years, propose Test Cases for the tribunal and then slip in an artifical piece of legislation that was never before mentioned and claim retrospection is necessary to protect the public purse and policy as though it all became a known event that required such draconian measures 8 years after they knew about it.

The scheme was not a sham, but I think that BN66 certainly is.

BTW, if someone had the balls to drop IR35 and provide certainty of how you will be taxed rather than a woolly notion that IR35 creates then I for one would be happy and the need for other tax vehicles are lessened. As for the tripe that you could leave a job on Friday and return on Monday as a Contractor giving rise to a status of employment for tax purposes is a farce and those who dreamt this up have never actually worked in the real world so have no clue as to how such things work in reality. But that word "reality" is something they seem happy to avoid without so much as a second glance. Funny how the same word gives rise to opposite effects isn't it?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Well said TSBT.

HMRC are lying, cheating scum and I should know because my brother-in-law used to work for them and he's just been caught showing his true colours.

They are institutionally corrupt and dishonest.

[smalldog]

"If HMRC can get away with taking no action for 8 years on a scheme that was 100% transparent and legal"

and that they admitted worked in TN63!!!!

TSBT, agree about the IR35 piece too, employees are protected, contractors can be fired in a very short space of time with zero recourse. perms have performance management, warnings etc and ultimately unions before they are disposed of. Its total B*llocks to compare perms and contractors, were always living on the edge, and are only as good as our last piece of work.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

"If HMRC can get away with taking no action for 8 years on a scheme that was 100% transparent and legal"

and that they admitted worked in TN63!!!!

TSBT, agree about the IR35 piece too, employees are protected, contractors can be fired in a very short space of time with zero recourse. perms have performance management, warnings etc and ultimately unions before they are disposed of. Its total B*llocks to compare perms and contractors, were always living on the edge, and are only as good as our last piece of work.

And as the Coalition points out, business will be needed to drive us out of Labours mess. Well when companies start invoking head counts but still need to deliver on projects, they'll be also looking to the same people that IR35 went after. Why? because contractors don't fit the head count model because they are not employees but when they need to save money, dropping a contractor is easier than redundancy. There you go Hector. Go read employment law - REALITY.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

If we lose

In the event the end game goes against us, then the last bastion of defence may come in the form of a Bankruptcy Order being applied for by HMRC to the County Court. Remember, HMRC cannot make you bankrupt only a Court can do that. So if or when that happens you can go before said Court and make your case. I've only just gotton started. The War & Peace I'm writing in anticipation of such an event will be forceful. And whatever the outcome, that Court will get to hear the full uncut reality of how I got there. Win or lose in that situation, I will get my day in Court and will make it count.

But before then there's a way to go and to quote Gladiator in respect of the above, "not yet, not just yet". And don't forget, without MP fighting this there would be no Forum, no DR and simply no chance. Whilst the odds are against us on many fronts, we're still in a fight and much to rule on beyond the Parker Public Policy ruling.

I don't know how this will end, but I'd prefer to be here as we are than as it might have been in terms of the valley of death in the 23rd Psalm.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

And don't forget, without MP fighting this there would be no Forum, no DR and simply no chance.

Montpelier are the only contractor scheme promoter I know of who have defended their scheme in Court. There are plenty of others who have simply shut up shop, at the first sign of trouble, and left clients high and dry.

I for one am very thankful that they have lived up to their promises.

[smalldog]

Montpelier are the only contractor scheme promoter I know of who have defended their scheme in Court. There are plenty of others who have simply shut up shop, at the first sign of trouble, and left clients high and dry.

I for one am very thankful that they have lived up to their promises.

here here!!

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Montpelier are the only contractor scheme promoter I know of who have defended their scheme in Court. There are plenty of others who have simply shut up shop, at the first sign of trouble, and left clients high and dry.

I for one am very thankful that they have lived up to their promises.

Agree 100% DR. Whilst it's easy to be critical of them without them we would be hosed. There is no way of telling where this road leads but as of now they have stood with us on this and that's why we have this Forum, you and everyone else who helps support the fight and keeps this alive. There are those I speak to at MP who I remind of my gratitude for not just walking away. They could have done. Whatever others say about WG and whatever issues may exist with how MP acted initially, they are the tip of the spear right now.

I wonder how many HMRC folk who visit this Forum feel the same honesty about how they went about their work. How they sleep at night thinking that this is right beggers belief. Why not just do the right thing and admit they fouled up big time with this, took it on the chin and passed the prospective legislation to resolve it? When I see such cheap shots being employed by the Public Sector, I can't feel much sympathy with them facing redundancy. I wish it were different. And if HMRC accepted this simple fact, then I'm sure that "we're sorry, we got this wrong" would get them the support that is otherwise missing.

Whatever criticism is levelled at MP on this, they're still here and fighting when others couldn't give a ****. And without that, I doubt I would be posting here and now. And those at HMRC who don't give a **** should consider this.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I wonder how many HMRC folk who visit this Forum feel the same honesty about how they went about their work. How they sleep at night thinking that this is right beggers belief.

If you knew what my ex-HMRC brother-in-law was up to at the moment, nothing would surprise you about these scum.

He was with HMRC for over 20 years and did very well, rising up the ranks to a senior level.

ps. what he's doing now would probably make Hartnett proud

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

If you knew what my ex-HMRC brother-in-law was up to at the moment, nothing would surprise you about these scum.

He was with HMRC for over 20 years and did very well, rising up the ranks to a senior level.

ps. what he's doing now would probably make Hartnett proud

DR, I can guess and I reckon I'd be close to the mark. Not a dead sure thing but probably an apt phrase.