BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Squicker]

Here's a view to consider.

What you get is the peace of mind that those not as fortunate (or indeed

I would go as far as to say it's de rigeur for a civilised society to support those less fortunate in that society, they are after all, a product of that society.

This clearly presents a dichotomy. I was in an IoM tax planning scheme where I paid relatively little tax, alhough probably still about as much as your average Joe.

I felt pushed into this scheme due to increasing uncertainty around my tax position: IR35. I started to feel that I was not just supporting those less fortunate than myself, but that the increasingly persecutory nature of taxation against my trade was making me shoulder far more than my fair share of society's burden. I felt this, and the level of risk I was being exposed to, was unjust so I left the UK to work abroad for a few years, in a far better tax regime.

I came back and decided I couldn't operate with the uncertainty of IR35 hanging over me daily and joined a scheme. Clearly this at least threatens the principle I laid out in my first paragraph but evidently, my first loyalty has to be to myself and my own family.

If the government said it's 25% tax across the board for everyone, I would have no problem paying that to support the less fortunate in our country. And I bet most other people feel the same.

It's the ever-tightening persecution of the successful that gets people's backs up and, in the end, we just say enough is enough.

[Morlock]

http://www.uktaxcalculators.co.uk/

Use this to enter what your earnings would be via MontP and see how the tax which HMRC claim is due. Input the numbers for the last 8 years and you find that "fair share" doesn't mean much to us.

Enter your net as gross then click on the link in red about what the Government spends your tax on. Enter your income for the last 8 years and you find something extraordinary:

Nearly all the tax would have gone on "Pensions" and "Healthcare" followed by "Welfare". If you pay for private education then it leaves "Defence" and "Other Spending" as the big tax users with "interest paid to the national debt" next. Now when you consider that your Council Tax covers local "Protection" & "Transport" you have to wonder what is "fair" about giving all that tax up for things that you don't benefit from directly.

Defense - Yep
Protection - Yep
Transport - Hmmm
Other Spending - Maybe

But the rest??? I have private medical, private pensions. I don't use Welfare and never will. Locally I pay my share for transport and protection and I pay for private education. So that would leave nearly all the tax going to:

Pensions
Healthcare
Welfare
National Debt
Defense

Only the latter is credible as a benefit to my family. I'm not sure what "fair share" and "Social Policy" mean. But from the stats, it doesn't look like anything that helps me or my family out too much given that we are making ourselves as independent from the State as possible.

On balance then, it would mean that being fair should result in a tax rate of:

25%


Anyone?

So you're happy for soldiers to fight on your behalf, but you're not happy to help pay for their medical treatment and disability pensions, or welfare for their widows? Nice one.

[RockTheBoat]

So you're happy for soldiers to fight on your behalf, but you're not happy to help pay for their medical treatment and disability pensions, or welfare for their widows? Nice one.

sure mate... when in a corner, play the guilt card

real answer. no they shouldnt actually be fighting on our behalf. no they shouldnt in Afganistan and no we shouldnt be having to pay billions to support a bulltulip war.

if we took those billions and spent on, yes guess what "medical treatment and disability pensions, or welfare for their widows", then yes, 25% would still be ample

any BN66 news available to get this thread back on topic?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

any BN66 news available to get this thread back on topic?

Nothing to report at the moment but hopefully we should get a decision from the CoA by the end of the month.

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/l...se_id=20100360

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

So you're happy for soldiers to fight on your behalf, but you're not happy to help pay for their medical treatment and disability pensions, or welfare for their widows? Nice one.

You're missing the point. If the state managed public pensions and healthcare better rather than squandering so much then the bill for those services would be much less and the tax could be distributed to more efficient uses. As a result, the need to mitigate tax would diminish since we could have a much lower rate of tax for all. The point is about "fair share" and I don't think the 'balance' of tax usage is fair or balanced.

If managed better, then the tax rate for higher earners would be less and the need for schemes less relevant and therefore the need to be fighting BN66 would not have occured. So this point is relevant to being here in the first place (IR35?).

[Morlock]

You're missing the point. If the state managed public pensions and healthcare better rather than squandering so much then the bill for those services would be much less and the tax could be distributed to more efficient uses. As a result, the need to mitigate tax would diminish since we could have a much lower rate of tax for all. The point is about "fair share" and I don't think the 'balance' of tax usage is fair or balanced.

If managed better, then the tax rate for higher earners would be less and the need for schemes less relevant and therefore the need to be fighting BN66 would not have occured. So this point is relevant to being here in the first place (IR35?).

Well I agree with this sentiment. But in your previous post you seemed to be saying that you didn't want to pay tax towards anything that didn't benefit you directly; and I do disagree with that.

[Squicker]

rules...

My friend was just telling me about a battle she is having with HMRC over tax-owed to her.

HMRC inadvertantly taxed her and a lot of other people in her trade incorrectly over a 2 year period 6&7 years ago. HMRC identified their mistake and wrote to the professional group stating the error and refunding those people that were within their 6 year limit for mistakes to be notified.

My friend was over the 6 year period when HMRC noticed their own error so they are refusing to refund her tax as they claim that they only rectify errors made less than six years previously. I don't know any more intricate details than this, but you get the gist.

So they effectively wrote to her saying, "we've over-taxed you but tough tulip you can't have it because we let too much time pass and have to follow process".

She is aghast at the fact in our case they are going back well over 6 years because it suits them but in her case they are sticking strictly by the rule book to stop themselves having to pay up.

Seem quite good at letting things slide just to make their own pot a bit bigger don't they?

[SantaClaus]

My friend was just telling me about a battle she is having with HMRC over tax-owed to her.

HMRC inadvertantly taxed her and a lot of other people in her trade incorrectly over a 2 year period 6&7 years ago. HMRC identified their mistake and wrote to the professional group stating the error and refunding those people that were within their 6 year limit for mistakes to be notified.

My friend was over the 6 year period when HMRC noticed their own error so they are refusing to refund her tax as they claim that they only rectify errors made less than six years previously. I don't know any more intricate details than this, but you get the gist.

So they effectively wrote to her saying, "we've over-taxed you but tough tulip you can't have it because we let too much time pass and have to follow process".

She is aghast at the fact in our case they are going back well over 6 years because it suits them but in her case they are sticking strictly by the rule book to stop themselves having to pay up.

Seem quite good at letting things slide just to make their own pot a bit bigger don't they?

I wonder how that fits into New Liebour and Judge Parker's definition of "fairness".

[Alba]

Tax Evasion

Not the same as our transparent situation, but if you read the full article (link below) it is rather interesting.

I think the word "fairness" will have to be re-defined for future generations!

Richard Mannion, the national tax director at Smith & Williamson, the accountant, says: “It seems rather odd that the Revenue keeps treating offshore tax evaders as a special case. The Revenue has got rid of a lot of highly experienced people and does not have the staff to chase up people that it thinks are evading tax offshore. Instead, its focus has been on trying to encourage people to come forward and disclose unpaid tax to the authorities.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/mon...cle7077663.ece

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Not the same as our transparent situation, but if you read the full article (link below) it is rather interesting.

I think the word "fairness" will have to be re-defined for future generations!

Richard Mannion, the national tax director at Smith & Williamson, the accountant, says: “It seems rather odd that the Revenue keeps treating offshore tax evaders as a special case. The Revenue has got rid of a lot of highly experienced people and does not have the staff to chase up people that it thinks are evading tax offshore. Instead, its focus has been on trying to encourage people to come forward and disclose unpaid tax to the authorities.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/mon...cle7077663.ece

On the contrary, nothing odd about it at all.

The whole tax system is geared around self-assessment, and HMRC are totally reliant on people declaring their income.

It's much more difficult to catch evaders than avoiders, hence the amnesties.

What is really odd is that the Government and HMRC should seek to blur the distinction between avoidance and evasion, when they know damn well that evasion is much harder to counter.