The Ban Hammer cannot be far away

[tractor]

I was not warned. And I know of no-one who was. Montpelier were pushing HMRC to go to FTTT. They refused and came up with retrospective.

HMRC have lied and cheated the whole time. Montpelier have proof of this. And MOntpelier have been singled out :-




The question of legality/morality was over long ago. The question of retrospection being right or wrong is over too. Now it is about whether HMRC can lie and mislead parliament.

Well, they got away with lying and misleading the PAC/Lords last year and again this very month over HSBC so wy not. They now run the country and have done for a while. Cameron and Gideon are just Lin Homers sockies.

[Unix]

I was not warned. And I know of no-one who was. Montpelier were pushing HMRC to go to FTTT. They refused and came up with retrospective.

HMRC have lied and cheated the whole time. Montpelier have proof of this. And MOntpelier have been singled out :-

The question of legality/morality was over long ago. The question of retrospection being right or wrong is over too. Now it is about whether HMRC can lie and mislead parliament.

If that is true then why wasn't every contractor on the schemes. They were too good to be true that's why. It was obvious that they would eventually stamp down on this.

[tractor]

...

If that is true then why wasn't every contractor on the schemes. They were too good to be true that's why. It was obvious that they would eventually stamp down on this.

Because there are degrees of appetite for risk. Everyone (now) knows what can happen when you blindly trust a financial organisation, remember Darren Upton? I wouldn't trust my accountant to pay my tax for me even though I have know him for many, many years.

For that reason, there is no way that I would pay my corporate income to any company whatsoever, regardless of the potential gain.

Even the government is not immune to ripping people off. People who paid into pension funds for decades were ripped off by none other than Gordon Brown when he abolished the pension tax credits.

So I didn't join any of these schemes simply because my appetite for risk was far lower than some contractors. It is that simple.

Even though it was obvious they would clamp down on the schemes, retro taxation is a very slippery slope none of us should want them to start on. What if they retrospectively apply tax to your ISA profits or your pension fund? Because once the door is opened, they would not think twice about any of those things.

[Unix]

Because there are degrees of appetite for risk. Everyone (now) knows what can happen when you blindly trust a financial organisation, remember Darren Upton? I wouldn't trust my accountant to pay my tax for me even though I have know him for many, many years.

For that reason, there is no way that I would pay my corporate income to any company whatsoever, regardless of the potential gain.

Even the government is not immune to ripping people off. People who paid into pension funds for decades were ripped off by none other than Gordon Brown when he abolished the pension tax credits.

So I didn't join any of these schemes simply because my appetite for risk was far lower than some contractors. It is that simple.

Even though it was obvious they would clamp down on the schemes, retro taxation is a very slippery slope none of us should want them to start on. What if they retrospectively apply tax to your ISA profits or your pension fund? Because once the door is opened, they would not think twice about any of those things.

ISA's and pension funds are government created schemes,using them as analogous to dodgy tax avoiding schemes that target a loophole in the system is idiotic. There are levels of risk and any reasonably intelligent (not overcome by greed) contractor knowing what HMRC are like with these dodgy loophole schemes would have weighed the risk against reward and opted to stick to normal Ltd operating.

[tractor]

...

ISA's and pension funds are government created schemes,using them as analogous to dodgy tax avoiding schemes that target a loophole in the system is idiotic. There are levels of risk and any reasonably intelligent (not overcome by greed) contractor knowing what HMRC are like with these dodgy loophole schemes would have weighed the risk against reward and opted to stick to normal Ltd operating.

It is not idiotic, I even cited an example of a government instituted concession to support my assertion. I am sure there are others.