BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[swede]

I'd rather spend on a decent lawyer.

I think spending money on decent lawyers is a good idea, but I think letting them lose at tribunals would be more worthwhile if it comes to it.

I can't see that much good will come from trying to go after MP - they are fighting from the same corner as us - albeit with their own interests in mind. Yes I'd like my 10% back, but it still aint gonna scratch the surface of my daily accruing interest charges!

[freedomfighter]

I did nothing wrong

Ken Livingstone is a

Non payer of
Taxes

Mod snip: rules is rules...

Its really stupefying how politicians usually get away with saying I did nothing wrong - look at the expenses scandal. Shall we try it - although in our case we didn't we followed the Law and it got changed and may earn HMRC a profit!

[freedomfighter]

Parliment notes

You are of course right. There is no comparison. At the time Jane Kennedy stated that Padmore was retrospective in effect back to the war. It wasn't true of course. But what is true is that the impact of BN66 goes back to 1987. It's intent is to be retrospective for 21 years.

Most banks don't go bust on a Barclays style event. Individuals do. If Barclays went bust now it is doubtful they would get any state handouts. If we go bust now, as a result of S58, many have stated they will need benefits.

A few years ago I divorced and my ex took the most of the assets in settlement, so I have few of my own. If I go bust I would no longer be able to be a Company Director, would not be able to get a job in the City (due to credit checks) where I have worked for 25 years. I would also be barred from acting as an accountant.

In short, I would be highly skilled yet more or less unemployable. Where is the logic in that?

I read some of the notes from the discussions when this retrospective legislation was brought in, and in the transcript Jane Kennedy stated that they are now looking into this scheme because they're are so many people using it - some one from the conservative party stated that they can not pass legislations based on the number of people using it!!! Did anyone look at the transcripts - it’s a scary read if this is how they pass legislations and apply then retrospectively!

[the gallows]

just an idea

Been reading for a while with interest.

If the tribunals do insist you pay up then could you argue the VAT should be offset against the amount owed? I assume most of your clients were in fact net payers of VAT. If you had been employees then HMRC would not have receivced any of that VAT.

An off the wall idea which probably wouldn't fly but just thought I'd mention it.

[freedomfighter]

Short sightedness

Now check this out - you'll be amazed.

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indonesia,Iran(!),Japan,Pakistan,Philippines,Russi a(!!!)...

It can be said that the government and banks cannot see beyond they're own noses - short sighted bafoons!
When IR35 was introduced there was a brain drain from the UK - and rightly so. Maybe
I'll do abroad and work - have work outsourced from the UK and hence pay no UK taxes. What happened to investing in the technology/knowledge based industry. UK has hardly any industries left, and they're driving us out as well.

[freedomfighter]

IR35

My accountant had ill advised me in 2000 to just pay the IR25 tax. So I did stupidly! I then eventually got my contracts reviewed by accounttax and they were outside IR35 - I lost 100K+ in additional taxes I should not have paid!
So does anyone think I can claw that back retrospectively. I'm fully aware that we are not disguised employees by any means and IR35 is ill conceived and the government after 11 years still have no damn clue about freelancing and how valuable it is - because if it wasn't why is it in demand. I also don't know of any permanent staff who have had to take multiple pay cuts and had their contracts changed to reflect the new rate of pay and told to sign or go, or have to take enforced holidays to save the Bank money - to obviously pay bonuses!
I saw MP as a way to claw some back from HMRC.

Is anyone concerned about the other letters we have received (you know which ones I mean) - does anyone worry about HMRC applying the same tactic?

[freedomfighter]

Stupid question

I believe that Barclays disclosed the scheme under DOTAS rules. I think it probably gave HMRC a good indicator of a date to go for. Disclosures have to made within days of schemes first being used or marketed.

If they used the scheme prior to that timeframe they would be liable to severe penalties.

Does this affect the loans we got?

[Ninja]

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if we demanded that the same rules used against us were used against these big companies. We demand the banks are investigated and retrospectively taxed back to 1987. We demand the 'oversight' with Vodafone and all the others are recovered via retrospection. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it's a good idea, but I'd like to see what happens when Hector starts treating everyone 'fairly'. There'd be a revolution. Then we can ask, why just us? This is a tool they will only ever use fully against little people, they'd be too chickentulip to use it against their mates in big business. I'd like to know what happens when Joe Public starts demanding it. Bet they'd wish it never happened. If our political representatives are questioned everytime tax avoidance comes up in big business why they are not applying the same firm of legislation as they did to bankrupt 2000 small businesses, what do you think might happen? I think maybe a few emails to the likes of the BBC etc, suggested questions to put to ministers we hear are appearing, might be interesting.

I like this idea.

[smalldog]

Lawyer!

We need to get hold of the lawyer that advised hmrc on s58 seems like they are pretty smart and therefore may know if and how we can counter!

[jeanvaljean]

Received wisdom?

My accountant had ill advised me in 2000 to just pay the IR25 tax. So I did stupidly! I then eventually got my contracts reviewed by accounttax and they were outside IR35 - I lost 100K+ in additional taxes I should not have paid!
So does anyone think I can claw that back retrospectively. I'm fully aware that we are not disguised employees by any means and IR35 is ill conceived and the government after 11 years still have no damn clue about freelancing and how valuable it is - because if it wasn't why is it in demand. I also don't know of any permanent staff who have had to take multiple pay cuts and had their contracts changed to reflect the new rate of pay and told to sign or go, or have to take enforced holidays to save the Bank money - to obviously pay bonuses!
I saw MP as a way to claw some back from HMRC.

Is anyone concerned about the other letters we have received (you know which ones I mean) - does anyone worry about HMRC applying the same tactic?

So, for someone embarking on a new contract which will involve incurring a lot of travel and accommodation expenses, what is the received wisdom out there about the route to go? Umbrella or limited?