BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[phileds]

Would anyone recommend me using an 'IOM offshore discretionary payment' company (i.e. Sanzar Solutions)?

I am aware of the current pitfulls regarding BN66 - does this fall into that catergory? Also, the company keeps contacting me, offering legal protection if it does goes T.U. - would this make any difference if the dreaded HRMC started to knock at my door??

Try asking Sanzar (or indeed any other scheme provider) if they'll refund their fees and/or back tax on your behalf should HMRC come knocking, see what answer you get.

Ask them, if they're so confident of their scheme's position, why they haven't taken it to court or to the Special Commissioners to get it tested and passed.

In short - if you join a scheme aiming to mitigate tax, the provider will give you no guarantees whatsoever. Offering to take matters to court is not a guarantee of anything other than uncertainty.

[BarneyCool]

New Element Discovered:

"Oxford University researchers have discovered the heaviest element
yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (symbol = Gv),
has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198
assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which
are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called
pillocks.
Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be
detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into
contact.

A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would
normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to
complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 to 6 years. It does not
decay, but instead undergoes a reorganisation in which a portion of
the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since
each reorganisation will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming
isodopes.

This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to
believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical
concentration.

This hypothetical quantity is referred to as a critical morass. When
catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium (symbol =
Ad), an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium,
since it has half as many pillocks but twice as many morons."

[Vallah]

Try asking Sanzar (or indeed any other scheme provider) if they'll refund their fees and/or back tax on your behalf should HMRC come knocking, see what answer you get.

Ask them, if they're so confident of their scheme's position, why they haven't taken it to court or to the Special Commissioners to get it tested and passed.

In short - if you join a scheme aiming to mitigate tax, the provider will give you no guarantees whatsoever. Offering to take matters to court is not a guarantee of anything other than uncertainty.

Why would any firm voluntarily take themselves to court? I did 33mph in a 30mph zone this morning, should I turn myself in?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Try asking Sanzar (or indeed any other scheme provider) if they'll refund their fees and/or back tax on your behalf should HMRC come knocking, see what answer you get.

I would run a million miles from anyone who offered such a money-back guarantee, as it could only mean one thing.

If HMRC investigated, they would disappear without a trace.

I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. If you want a company that will fight on your behalf, then you can't hold a gun to their head at the same time.

[Morlock]

Why would any firm voluntarily take themselves to court? I did 33mph in a 30mph zone this morning, should I turn myself in?

They'll get you next week anyway when they introduce a 20mph limit and make it retrospective.

[RockTheBoat]

They'll get you next week anyway when they introduce a 20mph limit and make it retrospective.

come now people lets not get carried away here. The trolls oop north must be loving all this fear-mongering thats been created by winning 1 round of our retro fight.

[Vallah]

And HMRC's draconian powers increase, yet again:

(From The Telegraph)

Budget 2010: HMRC officers to get powers to open people's post without asking permission
Tax inspectors are to get wide-ranging powers to open people’s post without their permission for the first time, it can disclosed.

Officers will be allowed to intercept any suspicious mail anywhere in the country and open it before it is delivered, under plans being drawn up by the Government to amend the Postal Services Act.

The measure is billed as a bid to crack down on tobacco smuggling. However, a HM Revenue and Customs spokesman said the powers could be applied much more widely.

Currently, Royal Mail staff have a legal right to intercept suspicious letters and parcels in mail centres and sorting offices and pass them to HM Revenue and Customs.

Tax inspectors must then notify the addressee and agree a mutually acceptable time to open the letter or parcel, before deciding whether to take any enforcement acdtion.

However the Government is now proposing to remove the legal requirement which will now allow inspectors to open suspicious post without asking permission first.

Treasury documents say: “HMRC will no longer be required to notify the addressee and invite them to attend before such packets can be opened”.

The new measure will be passed into law as part of the Budget over the next few weeks, and amend section 106 of the Postal Services Act 2000.

Under current law, the only other enforcement officers who can open mail are border guards who can open the post without permission at ports and airports.

The change was disclosed in a Treasury document published alongside the Budget headlined “Tackling tobacco smuggling in the post”. However a HM Revenue and Customs spokesman said the powers would be applied much more broadly.

The spokesman said: "The change is mainly directed at helping to combat tobacco smuggling but the powers in s106 apply to any contraband including prohibited or restricted goods.”

She declined to say how many times HM Revenue and Customs had used the existing powers in recent years.

Accountants warned that it was likely tax inspectors would seek to use the powers in other areas once they became law.

Heather Taylor, a senior tax partner at Grant Thornton, said: “This seems like a very small and limited change, but it could be a very big step for increased powers HMRC. Once new powers are in the hands of HMRC they tend to be extended.”

400 fags in a package today, any correspondence from an off shore jurisdiction tomorrow?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If you think that's draconian

And HMRC's draconian powers increase, yet again:

(From The Telegraph)



400 fags in a package today, any correspondence from an off shore jurisdiction tomorrow?

How about this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/mon...cle2028686.ece

If Labour get back in, I bet it won't be long before this gets revisited.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Mapeley Steps

HMRC were ordered to disclose this by the Information Commissioner.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/freedom/mapeley-steps.pdf

Quote from HMRC's Director of Tax Practice:

"One initial comment I would make is that if we excluded everyone who practised tax avoidance from supplying us we might not have many suppliers."

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

HMRC were ordered to disclose this by the Information Commissioner.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/freedom/mapeley-steps.pdf

Quote from HMRC's Director of Tax Practice:

"One initial comment I would make is that if we excluded everyone who practised tax avoidance from supplying us we might not have many suppliers."

DR, the whole Mapeley Steps deal with HMRC selling off its properties to an off-shore Company is a sordid affair. The bottom line is, HMRC were more than happy to deal with a tax avoidance business for a better deal. And yet, they now harp on about avoidance as though it's the Plague. Even HMRC acknowledge from this FoI that to exclude tax avoidance businesses from tenders would breach the EU Treaty and yet they have the audacity to make claims of "fair share" and the rest of the diatribe when talking about avoidance.

If the above quote is born out then it follows that if UK Plc exclude everyone who practices tax avoidance then there's a big hole in UK Plc business and therefore GDP.

This is another good extract:

"Definitions are difficult as well as what we may think is avoidance the trader may think is tax mitigation."

And this (again) is from HMRC's:
Chris Tailby
Director, Tax Practice

Who will hold this mob to account?