BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Its one thing introducing a retrospective law, I can almost cope with that, what I cant cope with is "oh and by the way you now owe us an additional 60% in interest because we sat round and did F all for 6 years". That for a lot of people is the difference between ability to pay and bankruptcy, granted that is a whole argument to be had during the tax appeal process should we eventually lose but that is the bit that particularly sticks in my throat.

what was a £100k debt overnight becomes a £160k debt. When we go to the SC we should request if nothing else the interest is struck out.

At most, interest should only be charged from the date FA 2008 received royal assent ie. July 2008.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

The Moral High Ground

When HMRC came up with BN66, they pulled the rug from under us. Through the use of words such as "abusive", 2,500 working folks have been tarred with a brush that would have the support of the masses not least since the masses know no different on this.

From a PR perspective, it's hard to trump. We're the villians in society, the bad guys, we had it coming and the like.

But, consider what DR has put forward and I've posted on. The only thing standing between HMRC having open season on every SME, contractor, LTD and the like, is us and MP.

Other folks might not like us for the reasons given above. They may frown at what MP created. They may consider tax avoidance to be dirty laundrey. But unless you pay your "fair share" as I described earlier (the full whack), it doesn't matter whether what you do is legal and transparent, it doesn't matter if you correctly account for an income of 20K and a dividend of 60K, if HMRC issue a COP 8 and say they don't agree with you and you should pay on account, then 6 years later "Huitson -v- HMRC" could be applied.

So for those reading this forum who are these SME's and LTD's and the like, pause and consider that fact and perhaps you'll see that being on our side is way more in your future interests than the alternative.

Would they go after the big boys? Well facts show they have not in the past so why do so in the future? But picking off the little guys of which there are thousands upon thousands with this is gravy.

So you might look at us as tax dodgers through ignorance of the facts, but for your future protection knowing the way ahead, you might at least think to call us friendly and helpful ones in yours and the public interest.

The Moral High Ground can be taken back and rightly so. So to those, perhaps the reality is that we are not the tax dodgers you thought we were, but for your sakes "we few, we very few, we band of brothers" might one day extend to all of you. But by then it will be too late.

[Incognito]

So for those reading this forum who are these SME's and LTD's and the like, pause and consider that fact and perhaps you'll see that being on our side is way more in your future interests than the alternative.

IR35 is subjective, no two companies facts are alike. HMRC are welcome to raise a query, as they do on occasion. This goes to the tribunal and the facts are argued and one party wins and the other loses. Retrospection does not apply in this matter so stop trying to scaremonger.

So you might look at us as tax dodgers through ignorance of the facts, but for your future protection knowing the way ahead, you might at least think to call us friendly and helpful ones in yours and the public interest.

So you really were working out in the Isle of Man then? Just out of interest how much tax did you pay on the scheme, as a percentage of overall income. Just curious.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

IR35 is subjective, no two companies facts are alike. HMRC are welcome to raise a query, as they do on occasion. This goes to the tribunal and the facts are argued and one party wins and the other loses. Retrospection does not apply in this matter so stop trying to scaremonger.



So you really were working out in the Isle of Man then? Just out of interest how much tax did you pay on the scheme, as a percentage of overall income. Just curious.

My dear cock and balls (just observing your avatar), what you describe is correct as the law stands at the moment.

What BN66 can do by application and as DR has referred to, is create a precedent. After all, as Mummery said, this is an "unusual tax case". In fact for the purpose of what is being argued and the grounds for it, it is a first.

What it can mean as a result of case law ruled on by the highest court in the land - the SC - is that:
Whether what you do is legal or not is outside consideration of fair and proportionate
HMRC don't need to act before 6 years is up providing they put you on notice and open a COP 8
They don't need to state why what you claim for is wrong. They just have to say they don't accept it.
They have to advise you to pay on account
They have to say that it might be challenged

That's all that is needed for the consequences of BN66 to be applied elsewhere in case law going forward. The distillation of all that this case is about and as DR pointed out is that when considered on the basis of "fair and proportionate" "a 6 year retrospective payment of tax" is within this even when balanced against the above.

You may disagree as is your right and I respect your view. The fact we disagree is a facility that this Forum permits. But I would rather use the word "observation" rather than "scaremongering". One is a fact, the other is an intent. Read it as you choose.

As for your question. I paid the correct amount of tax, not a penny more or a penny less to quote HMRC.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Our QC

Have a read of his biog.
details - Landmark Chambers

For example, I didn't realise he was a Deputy High Court Judge.

He was judge for this case which involved Human Rights.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8237886.stm

[AtW]

I paid the correct amount of tax, not a penny more or a penny less to quote HMRC.

He did not ask for opinion about his avatar, he asked you about %-tage of tax you paid. So, what was your effective tax rate and does HMRC share your view on correctness of what you've paid? Valid answers: a double precision number (to make sure your tax rate is greater than 0) and yes/no.

P.S. I think instead of human rights you should have claimed that you are "Fiduciary of God", the end result would have been the same but at least it would have been amusing to hear it in that PR campaign you plan. If it ever goes ahead please make sure you include your average tax rate in it, the public needs to know that there are "legitimate" ways to pay 3.5% tax when other "suckers" pay 40%.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Probably best to ignore today's visitors.

If you ever go on the General threads you will know why.

[cojak]

So for those reading this forum who are these SME's and LTD's and the like, pause and consider that fact and perhaps you'll see that being on our side is way more in your future interests than the alternative.

I normally don't encourage detractors from entering these threads* but as you've tried to draw us into your fight I'm letting them through.

Be aware though that you have now changed the nature of this thread into a debate as opposed to a support.


*(don't confuse a couple of threads with a whole forum, though I recognise that many have this thread on speed dial and don't realise that there is a CUK world out there)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Be aware though that you have now changed the nature of this thread into a debate as opposed to a support.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Didn't realise the "wide margin of appreciation" involved!

Happy to defend others even those of a single cell disposition (waiting for the insults now).

But at least this creates not a debate as such. But for some another word ending ending with one that rhymes with it. DR, your post provides the image I have. Ta!

Anyways, good weekend to all including frozen members and God...