BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[TheBarCapBoyz]

Santa, given that In the Night Garden is a purely fictional world, then I think BN66 belongs there also. Funnily enough, another mention from said spouse went along the lines that if 10 years ago you're friend give their kid a clip round the ear which was then acceptable and they told you so, would you now go round and bash them in the face for doing so because it is now unacceptable?

My previous post was not meant to be serious. It was just that there was an apparent parallel. But in reality, it does give rise to the nature of retrospection. Tomorrow I might call the HMRC SA Advice Line and ask them how to calculate my fair share of tax and what guideline to follow to know if what I'm doing is unacceptable. Actually, probably just send in my SAR as usual. Fully declared and transparent and wait for them to "take a swift response to deal with it" as the Disclosure Regime reckons it is there for. Not holding my breath given that 4 years before the DR (no offense DR using an abb) became a legal requirement, MontP were already doing it for HMRC. Anyways, Iggle Piggle is now back with Upsy Daisy or should that be Stephen and Jane??

To continue with the Night Garden analogy, HMRC remind me of the HaaHoos... a bunch of big, fat useless c'unts who sort of float about annoying the f'uck out out of everybody.

[Buzby]

tax affairs

so, after a long contract it's time to move on and also time to think about how to organise my affairs.
Since BN66, I've been more tempted by some of the schemes out there as a way of making up the potential loss that I'm facing - lightening striking twice ??
I was just curious, as a group of people that are facing some devasting tax bills, what the prefered option is: LTD company, umbrealla, loan-type scheme?
Harking back to the very reason I ended up in this mess, I would go for LTD company but there is still uncertainty about that with IR35.
What to do? Once bitten...

I have gone back to LTD using a large accountants firm to do all the accounts. hoping the government is going to sort IR35 out soon, but I feel its safer than any loans etc.

[pastalista]

What to do?

so, after a long contract it's time to move on and also time to think about how to organise my affairs.
Since BN66, I've been more tempted by some of the schemes out there as a way of making up the potential loss that I'm facing - lightening striking twice ??
I was just curious, as a group of people that are facing some devasting tax bills, what the prefered option is: LTD company, umbrealla, loan-type scheme?
Harking back to the very reason I ended up in this mess, I would go for LTD company but there is still uncertainty about that with IR35.
What to do? Once bitten...

When my investigation came to an end, Hector gave me a declaration to sign. The declaration said that "I would not utilise any form of tax avoidance vehicle whether considered legal or not (under current legislation)". They then basically said that if I didn't sign it they wouldn't close down my investigation.

I, in the company of my most excellent lawyer told them that they could go and **** themselves. I argued that a limited company is a "tax avoidance vehicle" and that an umbrella was as well. They said that limited companies were absoulutely fine and they had no issue with me operating that way. I replied that the same had been true of several of the schemes that I had used that, even though legal, they had calculated I owed tax at PAYE levels (plus of course the lovely penalties and interest). They said that was different. I asked them to explain why. They said "aggressive avoidance". I told them to go **** themselves. They said "we won't close down your investigation until you sign". I said that was blackmail. They denied it and said I was "treading a very dangerous line". I told them they could go **** themselves.

Clearly you can see how this continued.

They're not half as scary nor half as clever as they think they are. A big, blunt instrument.

We all know that PAYE is what they want us to do, and now they want to be the people that collect it at source.

If you can get a good accountant and get the figures out of a limited that some on these boards suggest they are getting (82% is a number I have seen) then that is probably the safest route to take. I just hate being compliant with these malodorous, self righteous, smug g1ts.

Luck

Pastalista

[johnnyguitar]

When my investigation came to an end, Hector gave me a declaration to sign. The declaration said that "I would not utilise any form of tax avoidance vehicle whether considered legal or not (under current legislation)". They then basically said that if I didn't sign it they wouldn't close down my investigation.

I, in the company of my most excellent lawyer told them that they could go and **** themselves. I argued that a limited company is a "tax avoidance vehicle" and that an umbrella was as well. They said that limited companies were absoulutely fine and they had no issue with me operating that way. I replied that the same had been true of several of the schemes that I had used that, even though legal, they had calculated I owed tax at PAYE levels (plus of course the lovely penalties and interest). They said that was different. I asked them to explain why. They said "aggressive avoidance". I told them to go **** themselves. They said "we won't close down your investigation until you sign". I said that was blackmail. They denied it and said I was "treading a very dangerous line". I told them they could go **** themselves.

Clearly you can see how this continued.

They're not half as scary nor half as clever as they think they are. A big, blunt instrument.

We all know that PAYE is what they want us to do, and now they want to be the people that collect it at source.

If you can get a good accountant and get the figures out of a limited that some on these boards suggest they are getting (82% is a number I have seen) then that is probably the safest route to take. I just hate being compliant with these malodorous, self righteous, smug g1ts.

Luck

Pastalista

I like it. Wish I could have been there. And I wholeheartedly agree. Trouble is, the playground bully is quite big and whilst I vow to never give in on the BN66 issue - they will have to prise the money out of my cold, dead hands - I'm starting to get fed up with being picked on.

I have no problem in doing what they ask - as long as it's fair, clear and certain. There is nothing out there that falls into these categories.
So, I then say - screew it and them and go for something agressive.

[screwthis]

When my investigation came to an end

Do you mind if I ask what investigation came to an end?

Did you manage to settle?

[pastalista]

Do you mind if I ask what investigation came to an end?

Did you manage to settle?

I was investigated for use of EBT (and other) schemes. I did manage to settle but it was huge and painful and I was on my own for a long time. I eventually hooked up with an outstanding tax lawyer who change the whole course of the investigation and helped me to survive the final year of it.

Whilst what you are all going through sucks beyond words, at least you have the support of everybody affected. It might be small comfort but it's better than nothing.

Pastalista

[moira under the stairs]

I was investigated for use of EBT (and other) schemes. I did manage to settle but it was huge and painful and I was on my own for a long time. I eventually hooked up with an outstanding tax lawyer who change the whole course of the investigation and helped me to survive the final year of it.

Whilst what you are all going through sucks beyond words, at least you have the support of everybody affected. It might be small comfort but it's better than nothing.

Pastalista

All, It maybe worth making note of this post to get the name of this outstanding tax lawyer who maybe able to take on our plight if we have to go it alone as a group in the future.

[pastalista]

Lawyer

All, It maybe work making note of this post to get the name of this outstanding tax lawyer who maybe able to take on our plight if we have to go it alone as a group in the future.

He is very happy to help.

I cannot praise him highly enough. I wouldn't be here without him.

Let me know if you want him to contact you.

Pastalista

[orientalist]

General thought

All, not that i'm pre-empting a loss, i believe we are right all they way, but if we lose and the enemy proceed with the closure notices, are we entitled to amend and resubmit our tax returns for the years concerned?

If so, can we as beneficiaries of the trust come to another arrangement, entirely lawful at the time? I for one drew a salary and paid appropriate tax on it, anything else i declared on the SA was definitely not a salary

What do you think?

[GottaBeOptimistic]

Hi there. I'll answer what I can.

(1) I thought capital losses could only be used to offset capital gains not income? It's probably best to run this past Montpelier.

(2) Assuming you mean TQ (not TW) then yes they are both still there.

(3) Most of the discussion has been pure speculation. Montpelier and the PwC consortium have both stated that they intend to continue pursuing the legal challenge but until we get a judgment, and they have consulted their respective Counsels, we won't know what form this will take. I think it's better we wait and see rather than trying to second guess this.

Cheers
DR

Thanks DR / All for the feedback.
MY situation is that other than having a large 5 figure bill from our friends at HMRC, I also need to register an equal amount as a capital loss from a few years ago. This wasn't originaly declared am I am hoping I could do so against one of my "unclosed" returns. To be said that this was a painful time is an understatement.

I can't offset these against income but do want to offset them against potential future gains. I will catch up with NW/TW to get their input.

However, I stick true to my name and hope for a positive result from the courts.......