BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[AtW]

But, I guess I have to be honest here and confess that I am actually actively using a scheme that is 100% legal and won't take going to Supreme Court to prove it, and in the event of success it will cut down tax paid to near 0% (I think less than 3.5% actually) and it might even produce negative tax paid!!!

Honest.

I don't plan to charge for it, so I'll explain it to you now for free and try to find legal weakness in my plan.

1. Let's say your business makes £X profit and pays say full whack of tax on it, say around 40%. How to get it down to zero and not go to jail for it? Easy read on!

2. Grow your business by 50% to say £1.5X, of course you'll still pay full whack to stay legal but the amount of net cash in your pocket will increase greatly. If you do well you'll get effective negative tax when compared to situation in #1.

Bonus #1 - expensive lawyers, scheme makers don't get to make a penny in this.

Bonus #2 - you get to sleep well: you've made more money by growing your business, rather than by being super creative with your accounting.

Any legal holes in my plan, should I engage very expensive Barrister to give me very expensive and probably worthless view?

I am going to our office (we pay business rates on it, how many of you do that? Full disclosure - we might get relief on it soon because we are located in a place where Enterprise Zone should appear, I half expect them to ignore existing businesses though.) to work on growing my business. I'll try to find a minute or two for this thread though.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

OK, you've made your points. Now please go away.

Most of us only come to CUK for this thread.

It would be just as easy to move somewhere else.

There are bulletin board sites where we could even moderate our own forum and keep trolls away.

If you want us to leave, just say the word.

[cojak]

And I suggest we end it here too.

I'd also suggest moving your PR over to General as well.

[smalldog]

Atw I have no issue with interest on prospective legislation, as u say it needs to exist to prevent people using delaying tactics. However for retro I don't think it should be allowed, we haven't used delaying tactics, overnight the game changed. By all means start the interest clock since the finance bill came into effect in 2008 but not before.

Each to their own regarding tax morals. I run a business outside of contracting and that was while using the scheme. During that period I paid Corp tax vat etc so feel I have contributed more than my share and paid a fair amount into society relative to what I've taken out ( no children, private healthcare etc )

Tax tolerance i's a very personal thing and each to their own, all u have to do i's look at our political parties differing views on tax to see an example of various viewpoints. There i's no right or wrong.

[smalldog]

Final thought, we only did what most large corps do, we used a tax advantage. But because were the little guys we have been severely punished. I don't see anyone attacking vodafone, google etc, no backlashes it's all just ignored and I find it odd why that's the case. Google paid effective 1% Corp tax, anyone attacking them, catching them with a retro tax or telling them they are immoral scum? No they're not and why not, why such different treatment, now that's what I don't call FAIR

[AtW]

Yes, I've made my points I am leaving now.

I don't see anyone attacking vodafone, google etc, no backlashes it's all just ignored and I find it odd why that's the case. Google paid effective 1% Corp tax, anyone attacking them

I'd support you in this and you are likely to have substantial support of the public, MPs and HMRC.

See ya...

[OnYourBikeGB]

This is all a bit pointless, and I've grown tired of it. I think I'll take a sabbatical from the forum, but I'll be about. This website offers many great services, but one only has to read through the advertisers that support it to notice that not one of them is offering a tax solution that guarantees that the maximum amount of tax is paid - oddly enough it seems to be more about how much less can be paid, if there's a theme at all. They presumably don't know their market. Oddly enough, I am now one of those mugs that pays everything, so I guess the deterrent does work, I have no desire to go through this again. I think though that there's an awful lot of people out there who need to look over their shoulders, because there's plenty out there that will think they are taking the piss as well. I confess, I am a little disappointed that we aren't better supported and the lynch mob mentality of a few, but I understand that there are many who'd rather not raise their profile, especially with some of the puritans that we seem to have on our case. But hey, there you go. Later.

[centurian]

It doesn't actually say that it should be retrospective.

Convicted London rioters should loose all benefits. - e-petitions

Well it doesn't explicitly use the R-word, but that's effectively what it is

"Any persons convicted of criminal acts during the current London riots should have all financial benefits removed"

It attaches a new punishment to a crime that was committed before any new law was even announced, let alone passed.

Apparently it will be debated in parliament, so it will be interesting to see their comment on the retrospective nature.

[Incognito]

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.

You can call it trolling if you want, I simply put my views across because as AtW pointed out we were being directly addressed.

I haven't posted in this thread previously because not being a scheme member it doesn't affect me. I have no interest in whether you pay your tax or not.

What I do disagree with is your argument on moral grounds. People using phrases such as 'holier than thou'. The way I see it, you took a risk when getting involved in the scheme, it hasn't worked out therefore deal with the consequences.

My views were asked for, I gave them and as you are now wanting to extract the debate from this thread I won't post here again.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

One thing recent posts demonstrate is what we'd be up against with any PR activity.

I was never particularly enthusiastic about the idea but now I'm even less so.

In any case, 24 votes is nowhere near enough to raise the kind of money needed to fund such a campaign.