The BN66 thread has broken a record!

[b0redom]

Minestrone, I am sorry but bollocks. If there is a loophole there to be exploited - why not exploit it... Ltd Co's do for expenses and divs or did before IR35 and continue to do as much as they can get away with.

Because expenses are incurred whilst doing business, and dividends are within the rules. BN66 was bending the rules to say the least.

[Bunk]

Minestrone, I am sorry but bollocks. If there is a loophole there to be exploited - why not exploit it... Ltd Co's do for expenses and divs or did before IR35 and continue to do as much as they can get away with.

WSS

You can only obey the law as it stands at this moment. Fair enough, maybe they weren't obeying the spirit of the law, but that's not illegal.

[scooterscot]

Minestrone, I am sorry but bollocks. If there is a loophole there to be exploited - why not exploit it... Ltd Co's do for expenses and divs or did before IR35 and continue to do as much as they can get away with.

Don't Tesco's do this anyway? The operate in the cayman islands last I read...

[cailin maith]

Because expenses are incurred whilst doing business, and dividends are within the rules. BN66 was bending the rules to say the least.

So was BN66 before HMRC changed the rules to suit themselves.

[minestrone]

The best thing about this BN66 stuff is they seem to have given up on pestering the rest of us over IR35.

[TykeMerc]

I don't support the tax planning regime that the folks affected by BN66 used.

However I do very strongly support their case as the concept of retrospective legislation is deeply offensive to me and completely at variance with any kind of natural justice.

I've tried to help their cause with MP's letters and FOI requests as it's one thing for a tax law to be changed and applied from that date and quite another to change the rules and try to hammer people that were operating under the old regime when it was "legal" or not adequately covered so that a loophole could be exploited.
It's up to government to make clear laws without loopholes and inconsistencies.

[cailin maith]

I don't support the tax planning regime that the folks affected by BN66 used.

However I do very strongly support their case as the concept of retrospective legislation is deeply offensive to me and completely at variance with any kind of natural justice.

I've tried to help their cause with MP's letters and FOI requests as it's one thing for a tax law to be changed and applied from that date and quite another to change the rules and try to hammer people that were operating under the old regime when it was "legal" or not adequately covered so that a loophole could be exploited.
It's up to government to make clear laws without loopholes and inconsistencies.

[RichardCranium]

It's up to government to make clear laws without loopholes and inconsistencies.

Sort of. It's up to the House of Commons to think up laws based on economic need, political decisions, kneejerk reactions and the demands of the daily press. It is then for the House of Lords to sit and think about them and spot the loopholes and inconsistencies and bounce them back until they are tidy enough to become real law.

Also, one hopes one or two independent MPs or brave backbenchers take on board what their constituents have to say and pass on their feedback too.

Sadly, a certain government decided we didn't need a roomfull of old codgers messing about with their political laws, and then decided they didn't need a roomfull of old codgers with any power at all.

And since the leader of that government was himself a lawyer, we had the worst possible situation: a lawyer making laws to serve his own career politician ends (and the busines of his lawyer wife who is doing very nicely out of laws passed this last 15 years) with no checks and balances.

Having laws without loopholes and inconsistencies does NOT serve the ends of a lawyer.

And when it comes to taxation, it does not serve the ends of an economist in the position of Chanceller of the Exchequer, either.

[MPwannadecentincome]

There's another problem with expenses



They still don't seem to get the idea of travel costs being a necessary business expense.

its the 2yr rule innit?

[RichardCranium]

Most users ever online was 714, Today at 15:50.

So, these 200 or 300 users we had online today reading the BN66 thread. Were they BN66 victims and their family ... or HMRC employees?

What else are they monitoring...