BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[zippo]

Letters to MP's ?

Chief Exe let off 40k tax bill! Nice ..........

Do you guys think it would be worth writing to our MP's asking questions like:

Why hasnt IR35 been applied to this case
Will there be restrospective action on this case

After reading this post..... I think my blood is actualy boiling now !

[PlaneSailing]

If they really want the tax...

Maybe we should just use this argument at the Supreme Court:

"Mr Alexander insisted he did not know that the arrangement allowed him to avoid tax, and has ordered an urgent investigation across Whitehall to see if the practice is widespread."


Words cannot express the hatred I feel for the elected and un-elected hypocrites that run this country

Surely this is caught under IR35. A pension contribution must be a fairly large clue for 'disguised employment'. If not I'm gong to get a pension on my next contract!

[reckless]

Consistency

Re the debacle over Ed Lester (Student Loans Supremo);

'The head of the Student Loans Company will have tax and National Insurance payments deducted from his £182,000 pay package in future, ministers say. BBC Newsnight reported that Ed Lester was not added to the SLC payroll when he was given a two-year contract in January 2011.

He was paid through a private firm - an arrangement agreed with tax chiefs.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander told MPs Mr Lester's tax and NI would now be deducted "at source".'


No retrospective measures deemed necessary for the usual suspects here then.
Double standards such as these, by the ruling Junta are simply beyond belief. Bring on the revolution.

[SantaClaus]

Re the debacle over Ed Lester (Student Loans Supremo);

'The head of the Student Loans Company will have tax and National Insurance payments deducted from his £182,000 pay package in future, ministers say. BBC Newsnight reported that Ed Lester was not added to the SLC payroll when he was given a two-year contract in January 2011.

He was paid through a private firm - an arrangement agreed with tax chiefs.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander told MPs Mr Lester's tax and NI would now be deducted "at source".'


No retrospective measures deemed necessary for the usual suspects here then.
Double standards such as these, by the ruling Junta are simply beyond belief. Bring on the revolution.

Politicians make "mistakes", the general public commit "offences".

[Morlock]

Agreed!

Surely this is caught under IR35. A pension contribution must be a fairly large clue for 'disguised employment'. If not I'm gong to get a pension on my next contract!

Agreed! How the F* can he be getting a pension contribution, travel expenses, and a performance-related bonus if he's supposed to be a freelancer ??? !!!

P.S. Happy New Year, everyone.

[Toocan]

Agreed! How the F* can he be getting a pension contribution, travel expenses, and a performance-related bonus if he's supposed to be a freelancer ??? !!!

The Telegraph article suggests it's because the arrangement was agreed with HMRC.

But really, is it a surprise? A few years ago there were suggestions that Tony Blair had used the DTA scheme. Was that true? I have no idea. We read these days that he uses a network of entities which (whatever else they do) hides the money he deals with and/or earns very effectively.

Take another example - HMRC have recently closed down employee based loan schemes. Why haven't they done the same thing with the self-employed loan schemes? They *must* know that many of the former have converted to the latter and yet they allow them to continue.

It's an elephant that I am at a loss to explain.

[SantaClaus]

Maybe we could get a friendly MP to ask a question or table a motion (whatever the term is) to get Ed Lester to pay back his tax/NI retrospectively.

That might rattle a few cages and highlight the unfairness of our situation.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

"Legislation will be introduced in Finance Bill 2008 to clarify, retrospectively, legislation introduced in 1987, which itself was retrospective, so that it has effect as intended."

A few days ago, I received a courteous rebuke from a Forum Moderator for making a post against an individual within HMRC. Naturally, I apologised and promised that it wouldn't happen again. I hope that the Moderator won't begrudge a few lines of self-justification.

The architects of "changification" appear to have made a few assumptions about the conceptual reach of the average MP. They anticipated that no-one would...

a) ...recognise the difference between a change & a clarification (obviously).
b) ...question what the dickens HMRC had been doing for several years, given that they apparently had a serviceable piece of legislation right in front of their noses. A piece of legislation which supposedly needed nothing more than a quick wipe with a damp cloth.
c) ...investigate whether this 1987 legislation was, in fact, retrospective in the way that was implied.
d) ...realise that the phrase "has effect as intended" is nothing more than a pompous way of saying "justifies that which is intrinsically unjust".

More probably, the architects of "changification" were cynically exploiting the trust which Parliament invests in HMRC.

Whatever the reasoning might have been, they demonstrated sheer arrogant contempt for the country's Primary Legislature. It's impossible to see how it could be in the public interest for HMRC to use this kind of chicanery to dig itself out of a hole of its own making.

It's a form of corruption - there's no other word for it.

[SantaClaus]

...

Whatever the reasoning might have been, they demonstrated sheer arrogant contempt for the country's Primary Legislature. It's impossible to see how it could be in the public interest for HMRC to use this kind of chicanery to dig itself out of a hole of its own making.

It's a form of corruption - there's no other word for it.

Yes, but the country's "Primary Legislature" went along with it even after they realised they had been lied too.

The question that has yet to be answered is whether an act of treason was committed by certain people within HMRC by deceiving Parliament and ultimately the Queen.

[moira under the stairs]

Yes, but the country's "Primary Legislature" went along with it even after they realised they had been lied too.

The question that has yet to be answered is whether an act of treason was committed by certain people within HMRC by deceiving Parliament and ultimately the Queen.

That is one question which I don't understand hasn't been voiced !!!!

Is it as blatant as not wanting to rock the boat of the old boys school ?, HMRC must have lobbied this through the corridors of parliament before submission , the 'pen pushers' & HMRC must have covered their Ar$e$,
please.. they are not that stupid are they ??