-
-
They ought to privitise it, and allow people to sue.Insanity: repeating the same actions, but expecting different results.
threadeds website, and here's my blog.
Comment
-
That guy's website needs to come with a (computer) health warning
"Is someone you don't like allowed to say something you don't like? If that is the case then we have free speech."- Elon MuskComment
-
"HMRC enjoys draconian powers over taxpayers. Investigations can be started at random, without evidence of wrongdoing. If a “discovery” is made, the previous 20 years of a taxpayers’ finances can come under scrutiny. HMRC can levy hefty fines for offences as simple as late payment - and the burden is on the taxpayer to prove his or her innocence"
Surely they can only look back for 6-7 years?Comment
-
Thats only IR35 investigations.Originally posted by AtWLast edited by The Lone Gunman; 6 April 2008, 14:10.I am not qualified to give the above advice!
The original point and click interface by
Smith and Wesson.
Step back, have a think and adjust my own own attitude from time to timeComment
-
Thought only beyond 6 years if fraud suspected when normal rules of proof for criminal proceeding must surely apply. Their own rules only require you to keep records for six years and until fairly recently it was less than that, 22 months after your tax return submission from memory.bloggoth
If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)Comment
-
But if rules require to keep documentation only for 6 years, then clearly the burden of proving anything falls upon them as you can legitimately say that you are not required to offer any documents past that date?Originally posted by The Lone Gunman View PostComment
-
-
Aw, bless. It might have been that way in the Lubyanka, but you're in Brown's Britain now!clearly the burden of proving anything falls upon themComment
Comment