BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If you're argument for retrospection is based on the %tax we paid then where would you set X?

Any scheme where users paid less than X% tax should be taxed retrospectively.

[BolshieBastard]

I know I said I was just going to lurk on this thread due to the hassle of it all but seriously, people should not feed trolls like ATW (who is on my ignore list) and incognito. These are just a pair of trolls. Nothing more, nothing less.

ATW and incognito both reckon they instruct their accountants not to use any measure to reduce their tax liability or so they have said to me previously in their efforts to describe their 'indignation' over the MP scheme.

ATW in particular likes to pay 40% tax. He can dress it up anyway he wants but this is what he wants you to believe. One can only assume his company, if he has one, doesnt make use of tax breaks or exemptions seeing as he insists everyone should 'pay the full whack.'

[DonkeyRhubarb]

These are just a pair of trolls. Nothing more, nothing less.

To be fair most people here don't go on the General threads so they wouldn't know this.

Having said that, Jesus with his 25,000 posts and the other guy's cock & balls should be a bit of a clue.

[AtW]

There is a reason why people don't admit that. HMRC have used posts on this board in court to "prove" that people knew it was a dodgy scheme, hence no-one will own up to it here.

I did not ask to post confirming the scheme was dodgy, I merely asked for effective tax rate paid - something HMRC already knows from figures supplied to them.

DonkeyRhubarb kindly confirmed 3.5% number which I expected to be more or less the same for everyone (it might not be the case), so thank you for it.

If we deserve to be taxed retrospectively, then what about all these others?

"The others" ain't a valid defence and in any case they are in minority when compared to all taxpayers vast majority of which pay "the full whack".

If you're argument for retrospection is based on the %tax we paid then where would you set X? Any scheme where users paid less than X% tax should be taxed retrospectively.

I think any scheme that pays less than normal amount of tax can warrant investigation starting from schemes that promise to pay the least amount, ie - something like 3.5% is pretty close to zero.

[AtW]

ATW and incognito both reckon they instruct their accountants not to use any measure to reduce their tax liability or so they have said to me previously in their efforts to describe their 'indignation' over the MP scheme.

I never said I instruct our accountant NOT to use any measure to reduce our tax liability, if I did that then please show me the link to my post that says it.

ATW in particular likes to pay 40% tax. He can dress it up anyway he wants but this is what he wants you to believe. One can only assume his company, if he has one, doesnt make use of tax breaks or exemptions seeing as he insists everyone should 'pay the full whack.'

I don't like paying, not sure anyone does (including HMRC employees). Sadly these are the rules and whilst I advocate lower taxes I do so for everyone not just those who take part in schemes that just increase tax burden on honest taxpayers who have to make up for the tax loss.

My company does use in a very considerate fashion some of the available tax reliefs such as, for example, annual capital investment allowance: we buy a lot of servers that we need to run our software. Sadly this allowance is fairly low already and goes down even lower next year, but we'll have to use what's available to use without being "creative".

What we don't do is base company in UK, provide service whilst being in UK to UK clients but use offshore entity to get the money.

[OnYourBikeGB]

To be fair most people here don't go on the General threads so they wouldn't know this.

Having said that, Jesus with his 25,000 posts and the other guy's cock & balls should be a bit of a clue.

So he's not the real Jesus? But he was so sinless! Think I'll follow BBs advice in that case.

[AtW]

Having said that, Jesus with his 25,000 posts and the other guy's cock & balls should be a bit of a clue.

You've got 2800 posts and that in my is a LOT for someone not engaging in light banter in General.

[AtW]

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.

btw, I got invited, see above.
1) I read this forum
2) I run SME which is Ltd
3) I paused
4) I considered the fact
5) I posted my views

If you had true intention to deal with retrospection you'd look wider and try to fight things like abolishing of CGT taper relief that hit people who already made investment decisions (ie kept shares longer than 2 years), OR recent tax grab on North Oil companies who made massive investments and suddenly they get less profits.

You would not be right people to do it though because from PR point of view your case is so obviously weak that very few people in their sane mind would join your cause (unless you pay them).

Ok, time to go to office and setup our monthly NIC+IncomeTax transfer to HMRC - I can practically feel the positive contribution to society this money will do.

[smalldog]

There is a reason why people don't admit that. HMRC have used posts on this board in court to "prove" that people knew it was a dodgy scheme, hence no-one will own up to it here.

But some appear to be believing their own hype. The folks on here are smart, well-clued up individuals. The notion that they had the intelligence to buy into this scheme, yet were utterly clueless to even the slightest possibility that HMRC might bite back - is frankly bonkers.

Err thats not true for all so please dont generalise, I invested my advantage wisely so have the ability to pay back what I potentially owe in prep for a bite back as you call it.

However I take exception to what seem to be some "holier than thou" attitudes towards what we did and people throwing 40% comparisons around, come on we are all contractors and I know of not one who pays 40% plus NI, its all small salaries and divs which enables you to avoid the 40% and that doesnt just apply to our industry or SME's. To be honest if you do pay that and you are running a business then you are not a very savvy business person. If you have that much of a social conscience fill your spare rooms with homeless people.

I guess techies arent necessarily the most commercially minded individuals. All businesses look for tax advantages, loop hole exploitation or otherwise, look at the likes of Google for example.

I have no issue with paying back money owed, what i have issue with is the punitive interest, by all means make it retro but I dont think retro interest should be allowed and that should IMHO be a precedent moving forwards for any retro legislation if this is ultimately allowed to stand.

Until someone in HMRC or wherever says they will drop the interest then I will fight on...

[AtW]

Err thats not even so please dont generalise, I invested my advantage wisely so have the ability to pay back what I potentially owe.

That was smart, I am glad for you and wish everyone who gets into such schemes deposited the case just in case their bluff was called.

I know of not one who pays 40% plus NI.

I pay it. Other members of our staff also pay it.

I have no issue with paying back money owed, what i have issue with is the punitive interest, by all means make it retro but I dont think retro interest should be allowed and that should IMHO be a precedent moving forwards for any retro legislation.

Interest is logical if tax was deemed unpaid, it's just the way it works - otherwise wise guys would just stall Revenue for years with endless appeals, then hand over the money that's worth half what they were 6-7 years ago.