• 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
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    I'll tell you what HMRC........

    You put your time machine away and leave us alone and Watkins won't sue your pants off for damages.

    Deal???

    Comment


      Unfortunately HMRC don't care if they get sued or highly embarrassed.

      Their reputation has been in tatters for years. One more cock-up won't make any difference.

      HMRC are synonymous with failure.

      Comment


        Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
        Unfortunately HMRC don't care if they get sued or highly embarrassed.

        Their reputation has been in tatters for years. One more cock-up won't make any difference.

        HMRC are synonymous with failure.
        After all it's not their money

        Comment


          Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
          Unfortunately HMRC don't care if they get sued or highly embarrassed.

          Their reputation has been in tatters for years. One more cock-up won't make any difference.

          HMRC are synonymous with failure.
          Beggars belief that HMRC still proceeded with a criminal prosecution when they’ previously accepted (in court) the returns were both accurate and lawful.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Fireship View Post
            Beggars belief that HMRC still proceeded with a criminal prosecution when they’ previously accepted (in court) the returns were both accurate and lawful.
            I don't think they are very objective when it comes to Mr Gittins.

            Comment


              Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
              I don't think they are very objective when it comes to Mr Gittins.
              Should the sins of the scheme owner be vested upon the scheme users?

              Though in the case, WG has done no wrong.

              Comment


                Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
                Though in the case, WG has done no wrong.
                Also bear in mind that S58 only became illegal after Hector doctored Hansard then used it to mislead Parliament with euphemisms such as 'clarification'.

                They are out of control and deserve more than just bad press. A trip through 'Traitors Gate' should cover it.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
                  From the point you pay the APN no further interest accrues, since this is treated like a payment on account.
                  - which is the bit i didnt realise. Sorry, and thank you!

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
                    Unfortunately HMRC don't care if they get sued or highly embarrassed.

                    Their reputation has been in tatters for years. One more cock-up won't make any difference.

                    HMRC are synonymous with failure.
                    they are not accountable to anyone so why should they give a SH*T

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by smalldog View Post
                      they are not accountable to anyone so why should they give a SH*T
                      +1000

                      An, in fact, parliament seems to do whatever HMRC tell them.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X