No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008

[Fireship]

At the risk of incurring official ire for straying into this thread, and I will not post again, it would also be nice to remember in this documentary all of those who were operating through normal Ltd structures and who have lost work through being undercut by competitors using a dodgy scheme.

Sorry but that’s just plain rubbish, market rate is market rate, your take home dependant on how you choose to operate makes no difference to the client. If someone else got the job it’s because they had a better skillset and/or interviewed better…..

[smalldog]

At the risk of incurring official ire for straying into this thread, and I will not post again, it would also be nice to remember in this documentary all of those who were operating through normal Ltd structures and who have lost work through being undercut by competitors using a dodgy scheme.

personally having worked as a contractor and recruiter of services from consultancies I have never heard of anyone being undercut or offering an under market rate due to that company using some kind of avoidance. Unless of course you are including offshore contractors who by their nature employ cheaper resources such as in india.

IF Tiger Aspect needed any more proof of why we are nervous of participating in a programme, here is an example. From our own creed, in the same industry no doubt, who doesnt get it and thinks we have made them miss out on opportunities!!!! God help trying to get average Joe to understand!

[jbryce]

personally having worked as a contractor and recruiter of services from consultancies I have never heard of anyone being undercut or offering an under market rate due to that company using some kind of avoidance. Unless of course you are including offshore contractors who by their nature employ cheaper resources such as in india.

IF Tiger Aspect needed any more proof of why we are nervous of participating in a programme, here is an example. From our own creed, in the same industry no doubt, who doesnt get it and thinks we have made them miss out on opportunities!!!! God help trying to get average Joe to understand!

Well Old Greg has posted 11,478 times, if we assume he's spent about 5 mins per post, then that works out as roughly 120 man days.If we spread that out over 7 years that suggests that he spends about 8% of his time pfaffing on the internet. Perhaps that explains why he's missing out on work.

I don't think this post will stay up long (as the actress said to the bishop).

[smalldog]

Well OldDog has posted 11,478 times, if we assume he's spent about 5 mins per post, then that works out as roughly 120 man days.If we spread that out over 7 years that suggests that he spends about 8% of his time pfaffing on the internet. Perhaps that explains why he's missing out on work.

I don't think this post will stay up long (as the actress said to the bishop).

you mean Old greg?! :-)

[Laxmi]

Whilst taking part is a crazy idea I’m starting to think that there may be nothing to lose by giving an overview of the facts, i.e.

• HMRC’s lying to parliament to gain approval for S58(4) (rewriting Hansard)
• HMRC’s use of entrapment to deny our day in court
• Gauke’s (and other senior Tories) unwavering opposition whilst in opposition and their complete about face once elected.

etc, etc, etc….

There are plenty of facts which can't be denied.... Just a thought....

Also, HMRC sat on this for years, knew they would loose, and introduced a law change in the past and applicable thereof. They closed a few inquieries as well, deeming it all accepted. This was an argument opposed when expeses were at state for MPs - the speed limit was used as an example. There enough documentation here and with NTRT.

[OnYourBikeGB]

There are no demands, they just take it don't they?


I've never bought that argument. If you'd be bankrupt paying back the tax everyone else paid, you were living beyond your means IMO. If I used any scheme, all the money saved would go immediately into long-term savings not get spent!

Stop trying to dress it up as an attack on SMEs, it's an attack on individuals who have used avoidance schemes. They were legal but in no way does trying to paint yourself as whiter than white pay off in this scenario.

1p on a pint of beer affects far more people, why would you expect national papers to make a big deal about something which hurts a tiny minority of people using niche schemes that their readers cannot understand? As already discussed, the average bloke wouldn't understand what's going on so reporting on it is not of interest, and papers write about things their readership care about.

This might come as a surprise to you, but I partially agree with you. I'm not trying to paint us than whiter than white, we pushed it and we are paying an extremely heavy price. You're wrong about SMEs, we are, and of course, it's not just us have a look at the 43K breakdown. The average bloke doesn't care because he has much more pressing concerns than the erosion of administration vs judiciary. That doesn't mean that it's not important though. Most if not all of us wanted to go to court years ago, we'd even agreed it with HMRC. This argument is about retrospection to avoid legal process. That's ok with you, I think it's wrong. We will never agree.

The 1p off beer will have no effect on anyone. It's a joke, a patronising sop, and it's getting the derision it deserves, from all but a few.

[nick4notax]

Such a silly point, it could come straight from an HMRC memo....

At the risk of incurring official ire for straying into this thread, and I will not post again, it would also be nice to remember in this documentary all of those who were operating through normal Ltd structures and who have lost work through being undercut by competitors using a dodgy scheme.

Such a silly suggestion, it really doesn't dignify a response! However, in these silly times, you're forgiven, Old Greg. For the record, such operating structures as Ltd companies, tax efficient umbrellas, etc do not feature in rate consideration; as you well know, clients tell agents what the rate range for an engagement is and we all, regardless of how we trade, aim as high as our demonstrable competences will sustain. We only (inadvertently) undercut one another when we're told by our agent to cut our rate to get the contract. May I presume you use a mix of PAYE and dividends? In which case do you "remember" those poor souls who use only PAYE?

[OneUnited]

Well, that's it. I'm phuk'd!
I'm on the bench now and reach state retirement age around the same time as Hector will be demanding a six figure payment.
We appear to be helpless and without hope. Every time we embarrass them they move the goalposts and criminalise us.

I turned 65 last year I was intending to work at least until all the legal processes had been exhausted or until I reached 68 at which point my mortgage will have finished, but this new piece of sh1te is going to bankrupt me like many others probably by the end of this year, thanks HMRC well done.

I am really, really not sure what my future holds it is hard enough coming to terms at my age with diminishing life expectancy but now facing the likelihood of losing my home and my family losing their inheritance is depressing to say the least, as have been stated on numerous occasions on this site, I just wanted to be judged as the law stood at the time not by some HMRC time machine.

RNewton:
If you read this why don’t you make a program (or follow up) about the many ordinary people whose lives have been destroyed by the manipulation and lies of a few HMRC senior people and politicians. If you are as fair minded a person as you want us to believe then I am sure you will be shocked at what has happened over the last 6 years. Make no mistake this is the story to be told not the sucking up to make HMRC look good that you may have in mind. I apologise for my rudeness but we have been let down by so many people over the last few years that I/we don’t trust anybody any more especially politicians like our infamous Mr. Gauke look at Hansard on the S58 debate in 2008 and look at what he is doing now, morally repugnant or what, there’s a starter for your investigation!!!!

[screwthis]

Such a silly suggestion, it really doesn't dignify a response! However, in these silly times, you're forgiven, Old Greg. For the record, such operating structures as Ltd companies, tax efficient umbrellas, etc do not feature in rate consideration; as you well know, clients tell agents what the rate range for an engagement is and we all, regardless of how we trade, aim as high as our demonstrable competences will sustain. We only (inadvertently) undercut one another when we're told by our agent to cut our rate to get the contract. May I presume you use a mix of PAYE and dividends? In which case do you "remember" those poor souls who use only PAYE?

nick4notax, well said. My thoughts word for word.

Didn't HMRC trott out that line at some point? ... i.e. That retro was in the public interest as they claimed the scheme gave us an unfair commercial advantage.

[northernladuk]

At the risk of incurring official ire for straying into this thread, and I will not post again, it would also be nice to remember in this documentary all of those who were operating through normal Ltd structures and who have lost work through being undercut by competitors using a dodgy scheme.

Indeed. Very annoying when you get passed over just because someone is a bit cheaper even when you have been carrying out the same role in previous contracts. Might go somewhere towards levelling the playing field again.