Originally posted by reckless
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!
No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Topic is closed
-
-
Originally posted by reckless View PostSo basically, HMRC get what NTRT may have offered up as a settlement compromise (the tax shortfall but NO interest; not sure about N.I. payments though), but then keep the option to get the interest too later, if they can be bothered to actually debate the issue in a First Tier Tax Tribunal.
Timing wise, of course this would allow HMRC to issue payment notices in July, collect in October (not just from us, but all 65,000 pending cases), and in turn this ill-gotten bounty would then allow George Osborne to offer up various sweetners in his April 2015 budget, just in time for the election. If it pays off for them, then by picking the low hanging fruit early, their scam has worked. If it doesn't, then the next governemnt can always chase up the interest element, if they believe it is worth the effort, and if HMRC can get their act together - I know, a long shot!!
Still, as DR mentioned in an earlier posting, it has to be debated and my guess is that there will be tweaks along the way, so fingers crossed at the 11th hour for a miracle, but not too hopeful I must admit.
I agree that with the extra money they could potentially pull in at short notice will help to persuade the electorate how well the Government have done and that "everything in the garden" is rosy, except in my case I don't think bus shelters come with gardens!Comment
-
Originally posted by screwthis View PostSo could this produce at least some vague form of silver lining (to those who have the means to pay) in that it may make them a lot less bothered about chasing the interest? After all they will celebrate, laugh, go home and have their bi-annual session with the misses and maybe, just maybe we will drop off their priority radar?
I still think that we have a very good case for paying zero interest, as HMRC should have progressed this via tax tribunals much earlier, instead of sitting on things!!Last edited by Cantthinkof1; 3 February 2014, 18:08.Comment
-
So in skimming the most recent of conversations these proposals will basically force us all into paying before any of us have had our day in court?
Is this how a supposed democratic government works? Just keep changing the law until it suits the government!
I'm sick to the back teeth with all of this as I'm sure we all are.
This kind of puts paid to the idea of NTRT too.Comment
-
Affect of paying tax up front ... and questions
So basically we will have to pay the tax element of the bill when we get one of these notices, but not the interest portion of the bill. The interest stops accruing once they have the tax money - which is logical. The historic interest that has accrued against the tax bill is then paid once the case has gone through the tribunals.
Got a couple of questions -
1) I have got some CTD's. How does the new regime affect these? Are they going to be legislated away?
2) Can CTD's be used to pay the up front demand?
3) If we have to pay the tax bill up front, I assume that the interest calculation that we pay later will take into account when the CTD's were purchased?
I don't want to find that suddenly my CTD's - which I have held for years - suddenly don't protect me against the historic interest accruals.
ObviouslyComment
-
Further thought
Thinking on the bright side however, HMRC may have bitten off more than they can chew, with this DOTAS Acceleration proposal. Up until now, it has only been a couple of thousand contractor 'scum' who have been targeted. However, I am sure that amongst the 65,000 people awaiting their tax tribunal decision, there will be many 'establishment' figures and old Etonians, not to mention MPs, who could be seriously disadvantaged. That in itself, may be sufficient to drown this proposal at birth.Comment
-
Originally posted by bananarepublic View PostGot a couple of questions -
1) I have got some CTD's. How does the new regime affect these? Are they going to be legislated away? NO
2) Can CTD's be used to pay the up front demand? YES
3) If we have to pay the tax bill up front, I assume that the interest calculation that we pay later will take into account when the CTD's were purchased? YES - although their systems may not be set up to handle thisComment
-
Originally posted by reckless View PostThinking on the bright side however, HMRC may have bitten off more than they can chew...
Ok, so that doesn't sound particularly restrictive. But what if you replace 'infinite' with 'beyond reach' (if that's a fair substitution)? I can't help thinking that there ought to be a strong argument for saying that to put the Law & Due Process so far out of reach (and to do it so dismissively) far exceeds the intentions of the Margin of Appreciation.Comment
-
Complaint
Wonder what happens if we are forced to cough up this year and the complaint succeeds??
Nothing I guess..........Comment
-
The impact of paying tax that HMRC says is due on a DOTAS scheme would be much more severe on the taxpayer than the impact on the Treasury of not having the revenue.
If this is seriously proposed, then HMRC needs to face a penalty if they take tax that subsequently is found never to have been due.
To discourage HMRC from simply demanding tax from everyone who reports that they used a scheme, the cost should be asymetric, perhaps a penalty against HMRC of 10% above base rate paid by HMRC to the taxpayer if the taxpayer wins in court.
Also:
"More businesses challenge HMRC decisions as 'unlawful'":
Shout99 : More businesses challenge HMRC decisions as 'unlawful'Comment
Topic is closed
Partners
- 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