BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[IH8GordonB]

I feel this needs clarifying. Please correct me if I've got this wrong.

We are being hit with extra National Insurance - Class 4 NIC. But this is because the trust income is now being treated as self-employed income and subject to tax & nic.

We are not being hit for Employers NIC, which would be the case if you were Ltd and failed IR35.

There is no mention of additional NI on my tax demand only an adjustment of tax due.

[sjw]

I feel this needs clarifying. Please correct me if I've got this wrong.

We are being hit with extra National Insurance - Class 4 NIC. But this is because the trust income is now being treated as self-employed income and subject to tax & nic.

We are not being hit for Employers NIC, which would be the case if you were Ltd and failed IR35.

do you know if that is that included in the 'adjusted figure' in the online returns? and why am I asking you?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

do you know if that is that included in the 'adjusted figure' in the online returns? and why am I asking you?

Yes, Class 4 NIC is included in the adjusted figure. (I am 100% sure of this and can explain why if necessary)

The adjusted figure is your total potential liability (excluding interest of course!!!).

You could ask MP but if we can lighten the load on NW, TQ then that is to the benefit of all of us.

That is partly why this forum exists.

[sjw]

Yes, Class 4 NIC is included in the adjusted figure. (I am 100% sure of this and can explain why if necessary)

The adjusted figure is your total potential liability (excluding interest of course!!!).

You could ask MP but if we can lighten the load on NW, TQ then that is to the benefit of all of us.

That is partly why this forum exists.

thank you for confirming

[DonkeyRhubarb]

There is no mention of additional NI on my tax demand only an adjustment of tax due.

On the Closure Notices I received, in relation to the amendments, it stated the following:

"The tax figures in this letter include Class 4 National Insurance contributions."

The figures are identical to what is in the adjustments on the HMRC online gateway.

[RingStinger]

On the Closure Notices I received, in relation to the amendments, it stated the following:

"The tax figures in this letter include Class 4 National Insurance contributions."

The figures are identical to what is in the adjustments on the HMRC online gateway.

To add to the confusion, the covering letter with my CN's stated that NI had been omitted, so they hand wrote it on and corrected the totals in biro. Professional.

[screwthis]

To add to the confusion, the covering letter with my CN's stated that NI had been omitted, so they hand wrote it on and corrected the totals in biro. Professional.

Tax is so confusing...

And some total douche had the front to come up with the slogan "Tax doesn't have to be taxing". It's like saying pain doesn't have to be painful.

[Fireship]

What you're talking about (prohibition) only applies to criminal law, not civil law, and sadly certainly not tax.

Retrospective tax is allowed but it is not without limits. The trouble is the limits are not defined. States are given a wide margin of appreciation in this area.

If the Court of Appeal is right then wide margin of appreciation = pretty much anything goes, especially if it involves tax avoidance.

Damn!!! I never knew that!!!

When you think about what’s covered by civil law it’s pretty shocking that such a lose approach can be permissible!!! You’d think the same principles would be applied across the board!!! Yet another reason not to live in the UK!!

[Emigre]

Calming Down

I guess by the lack of posts today people are beginning to calm down. That can only be for the good. Yes, it would have been "nice" to have some of the judiciary seeing our side of the story. However, this case was always going to the SC, if not Strasbourg; we have simply moved another step along the way.

Forget what happened on Monday, focus on those things/people that really count in your life and enjoy your weekend.

Emigre

[SLB]

Strasbourg?

Hi DR,

Not sure if it has been discussed already, but can you clear something up for me? I’ve received the “De-Brief” letter from MP about the CoA result and am obviously pleased to see that they are going to appeal. However, there is no mention of Strasbourg, yet on the 1st page of this forum the statement from WG states that:

“As there is every likelihood that one or both cases will go to the supreme court and perhaps Strasbourg the obnoxious retrospective provisions of s58 are still very much up for challenge”

I know that MP have always said they will take this to the highest court in the UK, but this was the 1st mention of a European court that I’d heard they have committed to – which I was very pleased to hear about! Has the original statement/intention been revised or is it an administrative oversight somewhere?

Many thanks.


As an aside, whilst I haven’t read every post on here I can see there is understandably a lot of emotion. For my 2c worth I am still firmly behind MP and back them in their actions, I can’t see any value in trying to settle with Hector and I’m in it until the end, when hopefully justice will be done.