BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[centurian]

Unbelievable. They're accountable to no-one. That guy at the start even seemed taken aback by being asked. It just reeks of corruption and power gone mad.

Only watched the first 3 minutes, but quite taken back by the sheer arrogance - refusing to even talk about the cases, citing legally privileged communication - even though it was a discussion from one civil servant to another.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

HMRC deals

For anyone who is interested in this story have a read of my latest FOI saga.

The Suo Motu deal - a Freedom of Information request to HM Revenue and Customs - WhatDoTheyKnow

My local MP has referred this to the Public Accounts Committee.

By now it must be clear to everyone that "client confidentiality" is just a veil of secrecy.

They certainly had no qualms about disclosing details of the Suo Motu deal in the High Court when it suited them.

[BolshieBastard]

Dave Hartnet on BBC Parliment being grilled at the moment

Available on iPlayer now

BBC iPlayer - Select Committees: HM Revenue and Customs Committee

The first bit with HMRC's top silk is priceless!

Hahaha! Inglesee rotweilered by Margaret Hodge! Shame he wasnt the silk at the hearings. Has this mong been sacked for such an inept display?

Best bit of comedy viewing I've had all year.

HMRC, the biggest shower of bastards going. At 21.50 he pulls the 'it's what the legislation means.' Where have we heard that before!?

[centurian]

By now it must be clear to everyone that "client confidentiality" is just a veil of secrecy.

That's bad enough when they are talking about actual clients of HMRC.

But at the start of this hearing, the "client" in question was HMRC itself, or more specifically Dave Hartnett.

[SantaClaus]

Happy New Year to everyone and their families.

Let's hope 2012 will be the year HMRC dies on their sword.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

I'm sorry for banging on about a 'timeline', but I really think it would be a useful exercise. It might even, of itself, suggest strategies that had previously gone unnoticed. Is this a fair & balanced chronology prior to BN66...?

.......

1. IR35 was conceived with laudable intentions. No civilised person would argue against HMRC's commitment to the lawful pursuit of its obligations to the state.

2. It must have been obvious, during the design phase, that IR35 was seriously flawed. As it stood, it would unfairly penalise certain groups of taxpayers - notably freelance contractors. Perhaps it was assumed that these casualties could be dismissed as mere collateral damage. It's also possible that some form of utilitarian argument was advanced to support this position.

3. After the introduction of IR35, it became clear that HMRC had failed to factor in a well-documented aspect of human behaviour; whereas people will complain about an uncomfortable tax, they are likely to react to an iniquitous tax. Unlike, say, the Poll-Tax protesters of 1990, the casualties of IR35 took steps to restore their tax liability to an equitable level by entirely legal means. Many sought the advice of Professional Tax Specialists.
It's surprising, given the accumulated weight of their experience, that HMRC's strategists had failed to anticipate such a response.

4. IR35 began to show other failings unconnected to (3). In particular, the revenue (raised as a direct result of the legislation) fell spectacularly short of its original expectations.

.......

So... if (1)->(4) are valid, then my friend has become a 'tax-avoider' in much the same way as a pedestrian might run to 'avoid' being hit by an oncoming vehicle.

Quite apart from HMRC's later attempts to blur the distinction between legal & illegal, it's surely just plain wrong that a Government Dept. be allowed to persecute a group of individuals for its own appalling errors of judgment.

[portseven]

I'm sorry for banging on about a 'timeline', but I really think it would be a useful exercise.

The BN66 Wikipedia article is probably a good start

BN66 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[portseven]

Hahaha! Inglesee rotweilered by Margaret Hodge! Shame he wasnt the silk at the hearings. Has this mong been sacked for such an inept display?

Would love for The PAC and Margaret Hodge to grill HMRC on our situation, though probably unlikely as we are going through the legal process

[centurian]

Would love for The PAC and Margaret Hodge to grill HMRC on our situation, though probably unlikely as we are going through the legal process

Careful what you wish for - remember this enquiry is about the failure of HMRC to clamp down hard enough on tax avoiders/evaders (the line deliberately blurred there).

Hodge wants HMRC to play hardball with the likes of Goldies and Vodafone - not ease up the pressure on those which it has already won a couple of rounds.

If she did look at BN66, she would be more likely to praise it - only criticising the fact that HMRC haven't enforced payment yet, or requested more retrospection. Remember, she voted for BN66.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Careful what you wish for - remember this enquiry is about the failure of HMRC to clamp down hard enough on tax avoiders/evaders (the line deliberately blurred there).

The 2 scenarios are quite different, their only commonality being HMRC's misrepresentations, deviousness, and errors of judgment.

On the one hand, these factors have advantaged big businesses by allowing them to possibly evade vast amounts of tax.

On the other hand, these same factors have disadvantaged a group of people who, by entirely legal means, sought to protect themselves from an iniquitous tax.

The implication that these situations are the same is a tad insensitive.