Kaye Adams

[ladymuck]

This is Kaye Adams version of what they are doing in her own words
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/ta...self-employed/

lots of duplication in there - copy/paste issues or was it the Torygraph giving the editor's job to an intern again?

[SueEllen]

lots of duplication in there - copy/paste issues or was it the Torygraph giving the editor's job to an intern again?

Sorry it was me copying and pasting. I need to tidy it up.

[Zigenare]

Sorry it was me copying and pasting. I need to tidy it up.

It's not like you to mindlessly post tulipe just for the sake of posting tulipe before anyone else.

[dsc]

Nice to see HMRC likes wasting our money -

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/...rm=Read%20more


Although the disputed tax and NIC bill was £124,000, the amount that would be payable after taking into account taxes already paid by Adams would be in the region of £70,000. Adams has spent much more than that defending her case. Dave Chaplin, CEO of IR35 Shield, who has been supporting Adams since 2019, estimates that HMRC has spent around £250,000 on this case.

I always wonder who at hmrc decides if a case should be brought forward against someone? cause loads of these case, when you read into the details, it's obviously 100% lost at the tribunal, so what's the effing point? I know hmrc has endless cash, but surely at some stage someone should be saying, lets just ignore this one, we will definitely lose. It seems they either:

a) don't effing know what they are doing
b) don't care they are going to lose
c) they do it for publicity to scare others
d) all / mix of some

Now you could of course do some sort of audit and fine them, but...it would come out of taxpayers pockets anyway, so what's the point. Or maybe look at the people who bring cases forward and if they lose constantly, sack the feckers, as clearly they are wasting money and getting nowhere.

Bloody useless morons. Especially as there's loads of people clearly breaking IR35 rules and not getting investigated at all.

[vetran]

I always wonder who at hmrc decides if a case should be brought forward against someone? cause loads of these case, when you read into the details, it's obviously 100% lost at the tribunal, so what's the effing point? I know hmrc has endless cash, but surely at some stage someone should be saying, lets just ignore this one, we will definitely loose. It seems they either:

a) don't effing know what they are doing
b) don't care they are going to loose
c) they do it for publicity to scare others
d) all / mix of some

Now you could of course do some sort of audit and fine them, but...it would come out of taxpayers pockets anyway, so what's the point. Or maybe look at the people who bring cases forward and if they loose constantly, sack the feckers, as clearly they are wasting money and getting nowhere.

Bloody useless morons. Especially as there's loads of people clearly breaking IR35 rules and not getting investigated at all.

nearly there Audit & fire them!

[Zigenare]

I always wonder who at hmrc decides if a case should be brought forward against someone? cause loads of these case, when you read into the details, it's obviously 100% lost at the tribunal, so what's the effing point? I know hmrc has endless cash, but surely at some stage someone should be saying, lets just ignore this one, we will definitely loose. It seems they either:

a) don't effing know what they are doing
b) don't care they are going to loose
c) they do it for publicity to scare others
d) all / mix of some

Now you could of course do some sort of audit and fine them, but...it would come out of taxpayers pockets anyway, so what's the point. Or maybe look at the people who bring cases forward and if they loose constantly, sack the feckers, as clearly they are wasting money and getting nowhere.

Bloody useless morons. Especially as there's loads of people clearly breaking IR35 rules and not getting investigated at all.

Anybody who doesn't understand the difference between loose (as in morals) and lose (as in defeat) should be audited by HMRC and taken to the effing cleaners!

With regards to your points above... "a" - most definitely, "b" - it doesn't matter if they lose as they'll keep going until they can make it a "win", "c" - they do think they're a law unto themselves and ultimately nobody within HMRC is held accountable for the decisions they make.

Having met quite a few "Civil" servants I have found most of them to be "rather strange" members of society who seem to gravitate to this last refuge for the insane and inept and are most likely unemployable elsewhere.

Opinions my own, obviously my DW hasn't vetted this post, she works for the Civil Service.

[SueEllen]

Having met quite a few "Civil" servants I have found most of them to be "rather strange" members of society who seem to gravitate to this last refuge for the insane and inept and are most likely unemployable elsewhere.

Opinions my own, obviously my DW hasn't vetted this post, she works for the Civil Service.

It may be working for the Civil Services makes you "rather strange", insane and inept.

[vetran]

It may be working for the Civil Services makes you "rather strange", insane and inept.

Being married to Ziggy has other impacts?

[Fraidycat]

No idea who Kaye Adams is, but Maryam Moshiri is a Legend:

[SueEllen]

Apparently HMRC are now going to leave her alone.