Originally posted by OnYourBikeGB
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Topic is closed
-
-
Originally posted by phileds View PostNS trained as a solicitor, is not affected by BN66, has never been a member of the MP scheme, and has no axe to grind with anyone. He's just writing here what he tells me, because whenever we argue about this subject, I invariably quote what I've read here, and he more often than not tells me that "that's not how the law works".
Our beef with HMRC is over maladministration and deliberately misleading/deceiving Parliament.
His advice to me? Not alot other than to hammer home the basic legal position, and just to say, unfortunately, "you're pretty much stuffed". NS did tell me well before MP went to court that an ECHR defence would be highly unlikely to get anywhere.
To reiterate NS's earlier point - if MP was so sure of the legal basis of the scheme, and with HMRC allegedly thinking the scheme unattackable with then-current law, why didn't MP get the matter judged in front of the tax commissioners on the letter of the law?
MP were only one of several promoters, along with property developers. None of the others thought to force the issue either. Why? Because it's not for the taxpayer to demand to be taken to court by HMRC.
I've argued endlessly with him about the unfairness of the position - but (and I'm sure he'll correct me on this if I've missed a point), Parliament made the law, and the law cannot be unwound anything like as easily as some here would wish.Comment
-
Originally posted by smalldog View Posteasy, theyd blame the previous government
Journalist interviews MP.
Journalist: congratulations on beating those nasty tax avoiders in the SC
MP: well as you know, the Government takes a dim view blah blah
Journalist: I was listening to your voicemail yesterday, and I believe you are an advisor to the board of ACME. ACME have 5000 employees in the UK, yet pay no corporation tax
MP: Ummm
Journalist: can you explain why the Government has taken removed the possibility of recouping the loss to the exchequer and moved to protect companies like ACME, that you were closely connected to?
MP: ummm - retrospection is inherently bad for the economy, makes the tax system unstable blah blah
Journalist: yet you have just bankrupted 2500 small businesses. Is your connection with ACME not unethical in the circumstances as well as blatant hypocrisy? I'm telling!
ACT 2
MP wakes up - it was all a bad dream. Grabs phone.
MP: Put me through to big Dave at Hector's House, B*stard Towers
Dave: Dave here
MP: You know all those slimy tax dodgers, I've been thinking we should stand up for our principles, but we want to make sure they can pay up - so what say we cut them a little slack, take them to the tribunals or hold back on the interest. There's a free meal in it for you.
Dave: Yes minister
And that's my thought process in a nutshell. It's not about getting public support, it's not about MPs looking kindly on us and letting us off. They already know that we have been treated unfairly, they're just too chickensh*t to do anything about it. It's about trying to get them to realise that they may also have awkward questions to answer if they do not intercede,and that we are prepared to force the issue. That's it, not another word on the matter. I thought the idea had legs, but perhaps not.Last edited by OnYourBikeGB; 6 August 2011, 12:43. Reason: Additional scenes for the big screen and farewell performanceComment
-
It's not about getting public support
An alternative scenario. An MP is sitting in his constituency office.
Their assistant brings in a letter from a constituent.
The MP reads the letter - it's from someone being affected by retrospective legislation, with a thinly veiled threat to "expose" the MPs connections with tax avoiding companies unless they act to repeal the retrospective legislation.
The MP suddenly turns to their assistant with an urgent question that has sprung to his/her mind - "What did you say was for lunch today?"
Seriously, that is how flippant they will treat this threat. It'll be like brushing dandruff off their shoulder. Even if they have any dirt, the letter will just ensure that they put extra shields in place to protect themselves.
The problem with the expenses scandal is that the stupid/rotten ones are gone. All we have left now are the clean ones, or those too smart to be caught out.Comment
-
Also, at the risk of getting flamed again (my comment about being careful on not overusing the word "fair" went down like a lead balloon a few days ago), MP's have a pretty easy get-out card.
"It's true that I have a connection to Acme. I feel it is important to be involved with companies such as Acme - that invest in the UK and provide thousands of jobs to hard working families up and down the land.
If reports are correct that Acme are paying low levels of UK corporation tax, that is a matter for the tax authorities to look at - in co-operation with Acme's auditors. But we should not allow that to detract from the good work that Acme are doing providing all these jobs which supplies the exchequer with billions of pounds of tax revenue, that is vital in supporting public services in these difficult times."
Notice I deliberately sidestepped retrospection in the response. The point is that if I can knock this out while drinking a beer on a Saturday afternoon, imagine what argument a well trained politician & spin doctor can produce.
Put simply, they'll say that chasing the big guys is counter productive - and that schools/hospitals will close if they do, but individual tax avoiders don't employ people, so there is no disadvantage to pursuing them to the ends of the time. Before the I get shot down in flames again, it doesn't matter if that last statement is true or not - that's the spin that will be placed upon it.Comment
-
Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View PostMaybe it's not always clear on here but I'm sure most people realise we are challenging primary legislation of Parliament.
In particular a lot of energy has been directed to HMRC's actions, of which you can quickly exhaust a thesaurus in describing their behaviour. But it seems as far as the courts are concerned, this is irrelevant in determining the legality of BN66.Comment
-
Originally posted by centurian View PostIn particular a lot of energy has been directed to HMRC's actions, of which you can quickly exhaust a thesaurus in describing their behaviour. But it seems as far as the courts are concerned, this is irrelevant in determining the legality of BN66.
What HMRC did, or didn't do, is largely immaterial.Comment
-
Originally posted by centurian View PostAlso, at the risk of getting flamed again
Originally posted by centurianAnd that's where it falls down. Politicians only do anything that the public ultimately support (even the cuts are supported, grudgingly by many).Last edited by OnYourBikeGB; 6 August 2011, 20:17.Comment
-
Probably more of a minor singe, rather than an outright flaming then.
But I do understand that people's houses are at stake here and I know it's an emotive subject, which is why I resisted the urge to respond at the time.Comment
-
Bringing the introduction of retrospective tax to a wider public
I have never posted on the board because I was hoping all you IT experts might give us a site to discuss key issues privately. I work as a drilling engineer in Aberdeen, freelancing since 1988. I joined the scheme from day 1 and intend to see this through to the bitter end. I suffered a double whammy in 2001 with IR35 and Equitable Life, as my livelihood/way of life was threatened and my 13 years of pension payments evaporated overnight.
Our current situation is not good and for me the final straw was reading the protocol on tax changes because I didnt think they would have enough sense to do that. It told me they know exactly what they are doing, vindictively attacking a small group of contractors (who are undoubtedly seen as plebs not knowing their place) while writing a protocol that says it wont happen again.
Having read the protocol the question is whether these guidelines will mean anything when set against legal precedent if we lose. Given that situation my suggestion is that we take out a full page advert in a national paper on the introduction of retrospective taxation in the UK. We have already seen enough comments on the board to put together a hard hitting headline and a few words (not too many) in very bold print. I was told the cost for a one page advert is around £35k. I am certainly willing to put some money into that and perhaps Gaines-Cooper and the property developers might support it.
Yes we can wait for the SC but that would be too late and at the current time retrospective taxation is a fact in law whether it is being enforced or not. We need to alert UK plc to the threat that is out there and although I have written to the CBI I cant see any other way of bringing the facts to a wider audience although others may have a better idea. It may seem like pouring good money after bad but I hate this feeling of being totally powerless as we are singled out for special treatment, when everything was perfectly legal until Budget 2008.
regardsComment
Topic is closed
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment