BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Slobbo]

For me personally

My understanding of IR35 (at the time) left me worried about future liabilities so I went looking for a legal, tax efficient and most importantly certain method of working. Being caught by IR35 didn't make going to work worthwhile.

My understanding of the MP scheme was that it
1. Was fully disclosed
2. Vetted independently and found to be within the law
3. Most importantly - Left me feeling certain of my liabilities going forward

I wouldn't have joined if I thought I might be hit with retrospective penalties. Who in their right mind would? No one saw this retrospective element coming. I think we all expected the loop hole to be closed prospectively at some point.

Do they really think we are as stupid as they appear to be? What is worse is that they are idiots in authority with too much power and ineffective checks and measures to prevent situations like this.

[BolshieBastard]

This is what one of our "friends" from Up North gave in written evidence to the JR.

"Following Royal Assent, in July 2008, some of the IT contractors who used the avoidance scheme have claimed that they are unable to pay the tax that would be due as a direct result of S58. They claim that because of S58 marriages are being put at risk, they may lose their houses to fund the liability or in extreme cases they may even be declared bankrupt.

I believe, however, that the reality is that all users of the scheme were aware that they were using a tax avoidance scheme and that they might, eventually, have to pay the tax they had tried to avoid plus interest on the late payment of the tax. If they chose to spend the tax avoided rather than put it to one side to await the final outcome then that was a choice they made to risk their house and other assets."

Well the shyster is talking out of his dirty ******* arse. And you can quote me on that.

I was aware I was using tax planning to remove the 'doubt' of IR35. I didn not believe for one minute, that I was going to 'eventually' pay the tax and any interest.

If I thought that I would have to, what is the ******* point of using the said tax planning in the first place?

If I had thought it was dodgey in the first place, I wouldnt have used it. Bunch of incompetents!

[Fireship]

Lurker no more!

Hi there,

Long time lurker here. I've just registered in order to vote and thought I would also stop by and say hi.

As for my position, I’ve been using the scheme constantly since the very beginning and of all the people I know I have by far the largest exposure!! I’ve seen some sizable figures mentioned on this forum but sadly I can top even those!!! Suffice to say I’m bankrupt (and then some) if we lose!!

I’d also like to take the opportunity to say a big thank you to DR whom I’ve been in contact with over the months via email. Without him and this forum a lot of us would be in the dark feeling desperate and alone – his efforts are a real boost to moral!!

I’m yet another sailor hence the tag, and with any luck we’ll now get the chance to sail a legal fireship right down the throat of HMRC

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

If they chose to spend the tax avoided rather than put it to one side to await the final outcome then that was a choice they made to risk their house and other assets.

Something bothers me about this extract. It assumes that the monies in question could be put to one side. Further, what does to "await the final outcome" actually imply? I think it rather churlish to assume anything that deals with retrospection given the gravitas that even the Government places on implementing it.

This goes to the heart of the lack of understanding of the issue and hence why an HR consideration exists. Namely:

Assumptions without evidence
Choice - On what basis was it claimed to spend the "tax"?
Risk - Transparency was there to remove the risk
Final outcome - When did HMRC ever infer the "final outcome" would or could be retrospection?

I'm sorry, but this bothers me somewhat. A statement such as this asks more questions of HMRC than it answers and gives good cause for the fact that retrospection had not been considered fully and that no due diligence had been done to understand the impact of it but instead "assumes" a position which is unfounded. Retrospection and assumption are not bed-fellows and never should be. Poor choice of words in this quote, but no less so than the wording of BN66.

And as an aside. I pay more than my "fair share" of:

Council Tax
Road Tax
Fuel Tax
Mortgage
Life cover
Critical Illness Cover
Private Medical Cover
Charities
Interest to Banks
Running a program to build a new school in the area (FoC)
Pay for private education

(Not behind in any of these payments or works)


But I don't:
Live off the state
Depend on the state
Get handouts to better my life from the state
AND NEVER HAVE DONE

But I think the differences between these 2 categories explains why I like you are targets of NL.

So as for "fair share" and "social policy", well I'm sorry, but I think I'm rather more advanced in both than the wierd beards who have started to preach it.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

i expect nothign from the legal process other than postponement of the day the bailiffs come

I can understand your pessimism, especially after Parker's judgment.

Let's hope we can exceed your expectations.

[loser]

what a disgrace

This is what one of our "friends" from Up North gave in written evidence to the JR.

"Following Royal Assent, in July 2008, some of the IT contractors who used the avoidance scheme have claimed that they are unable to pay the tax that would be due as a direct result of S58. They claim that because of S58 marriages are being put at risk, they may lose their houses to fund the liability or in extreme cases they may even be declared bankrupt.

I believe, however, that the reality is that all users of the scheme were aware that they were using a tax avoidance scheme and that they might, eventually, have to pay the tax they had tried to avoid plus interest on the late payment of the tax. If they chose to spend the tax avoided rather than put it to one side to await the final outcome then that was a choice they made to risk their house and other assets."

Does anyone actually think he truly believes what he says?

I think this is quite a shameful thing to say.

I was in the scheme since 2003. I didn't ever receive anything from HMRC potentially warning me off this scheme, bringing it to my attention, or warning of potential for retrospective or other legislation which would make it invalid. In 2007 and 2008 I actually received refunds in respect of over payments for tax paid on account and then in early 2009 I received my first closure notices.

The notion that in some way I should have known/had been forewarned off this scheme is contemptible. Indeed when I received the refunds, I'm not sure how else I could have reasonably interpreted these as the HMRC viewing my tax affairs at that point being up to date to the point that I was owed money.

[PlaneSailing]

Another line of attack

This is what one of our "friends" from Up North gave in written evidence to the JR.

"Following Royal Assent, in July 2008, some of the IT contractors who used the avoidance scheme have claimed that they are unable to pay the tax that would be due as a direct result of S58. They claim that because of S58 marriages are being put at risk, they may lose their houses to fund the liability or in extreme cases they may even be declared bankrupt.

I believe, however, that the reality is that all users of the scheme were aware that they were using a tax avoidance scheme and that they might, eventually, have to pay the tax they had tried to avoid plus interest on the late payment of the tax. If they chose to spend the tax avoided rather than put it to one side to await the final outcome then that was a choice they made to risk their house and other assets."

Ok. I've been thinking about this. I was under the impression
that CIVIL SERVANTS were supposed to be impartial. The belief's
of this person should exclude them from dealing with our case.

I have spoken to people who have worked for the Ombudsman's
office and they concur.

This is a step too far.

[phileds]

For me personally

My understanding of IR35 (at the time) left me worried about future liabilities so I went looking for a legal, tax efficient and most importantly certain method of working. Being caught by IR35 didn't make going to work worthwhile.

My understanding of the MP scheme was that it
1. Was fully disclosed
2. Vetted independently and found to be within the law
3. Most importantly - Left me feeling certain of my liabilities going forward

I wouldn't have joined if I thought I might be hit with retrospective penalties. Who in their right mind would? No one saw this retrospective element coming. I think we all expected the loop hole to be closed prospectively at some point.

Do they really think we are as stupid as they appear to be? What is worse is that they are idiots in authority with too much power and ineffective checks and measures to prevent situations like this.

1 - Definitely
2 - I thought so as well, but "counsel's opinion" is just that - an opinion. It's the courts which decide legalities.
3 - Indeed. Perhaps too much.

No-one saw this retrospective element coming - except it seems HMRC. Perhaps we could've been better advised of the potential downside?

[phileds]

Ok. I've been thinking about this. I was under the impression
that CIVIL SERVANTS were supposed to be impartial. The belief's
of this person should exclude them from dealing with our case.

I have spoken to people who have worked for the Ombudsman's
office and they concur.

This is a step too far.

Unbelievable!

Was gladdened to read in the media that morale at HMRC is very low. May it go even lower.

[smalldog]

Unbelievable!

Was gladdened to read in the media that morale at HMRC is very low. May it go even lower.

its quite incredible to realise that someone at HMRC had already decided they were judge jury and executioner and were prepared to be put on record to that effect, deary me.

Well lets hope COA give em a right good its long overdue, in the interest of social policy the judges should knock these terrorists down a peg to stop them terrorising the rest of society moving forwards, I would have thought that is a key social responsibility