The BN66 thread has broken a record!

[NickFitz]

I will side with the goverment that the rule was implied and that is why they can go after it retrosectively.

People should have been wise enough to see that not paying tax on their earnings for nearly 10 years was going to end badly. How the flip you all thought you would get away with this is beyond me.

The judge appears to disagree with you, having accepted that Padmore does not apply. It seems that HMRC also disagree with you, as they have shifted their arguments away from trying to claim that Padmore applies to a more general argument that they can, retrospectively, do anything they damn well please, and to hell with what rules there might or might not have been.

[Zippy]

If you guys insist on feeding the troll, please confine your contribution to a small square of stale bread.

[minestrone]

The judge appears to disagree with you, having accepted that Padmore does not apply. It seems that HMRC also disagree with you, as they have shifted their arguments away from trying to claim that Padmore applies to a more general argument that they can, retrospectively, do anything they damn well please, and to hell with what rules there might or might not have been.

What do I think is more wrong? Someone paying no tax on their 6 figure a year earnings for 7 years or the treasury going after the people that have not paid tax on their earnings for the last 7 years as in this case? Well I think I am going to side with the treasury.

If nobody on this site had ever heard of this scheme and then the story broke that Doctors had been doing it for years and did not pay any tax you would all be going bonkers.

People who are being chased have lost their objectivity on the subject, to them it is about being hit by a masssive bill from hector, to the rest of us it is a moral case, should someone who lives and works in the UK get to launder money out and then in the country and not pay any tax on it.

You should have paid it in the first place I say.

[TykeMerc]

People who are being chased have lost their objectivity on the subject, to them it is about being hit by a masssive bill from hector, to the rest of us it is a moral case, should someone who lives and works in the UK get to launder money out and then in the country and not pay any tax on it.

You should have paid it in the first place I say.

If you feel so morally outraged that these people have avoided tax that could have been paid how can you negotiate the moral maze of avoiding Income Tax and National Insurance by paying yourself partially in dividends when you could take it all as salary? Surely you're exploiting a tax loophole too?

Maybe they should have paid the tax in the first place, I don't support the tax planning mechanism that they used, however this is where my views differ from yours.

It is perfectly reasonable that a UK citizen is entitled to order their tax affairs in line with current UK law at the time of the income and that's an overriding moral concern.

While there's absolutely no doubt that these folks exploited a tax loophole that's been a factor in every tax regime throughout history. People have always done their best to pay as little tax as they can legally get away with, to believe otherwise is naive to say the least.

I'm certain that you would be totally opposed to retrospective legislation that attempted to force you to pay Income Tax, NI's, penalties and interest on the money you've taken from your business in dividends.

As I've said before I do not support the tax planning approach that these people have used, but I am completely opposed to HMG and HMRC attempting to enact and enforce retrospective law.

It is a basic right that a person can have reasonable certainty that their behaviour is legal. For a government to attempt to retrospectively punish past activity because they've cottoned onto the fact that their past law was flawed is morally repugnant and goes completely against any sense of natural justice.

It is up to HMG to draft clear tax law that isn't open to interpretation, it is not the moral responsibility of a UK taxpayer to pay more than they absolutely have to.

[minestrone]

If you feel so morally outraged that these people have avoided tax that could have been paid how can you negotiate the moral maze of avoiding Income Tax and National Insurance by paying yourself partially in dividends when you could take it all as salary? Surely you're exploiting a tax loophole too?

Maybe they should have paid the tax in the first place, I don't support the tax planning mechanism that they used, however this is where my views differ from yours.

It is perfectly reasonable that a UK citizen is entitled to order their tax affairs in line with current UK law at the time of the income and that's an overriding moral concern.

While there's absolutely no doubt that these folks exploited a tax loophole that's been a factor in every tax regime throughout history. People have always done their best to pay as little tax as they can legally get away with, to believe otherwise is naive to say the least.

I'm certain that you would be totally opposed to retrospective legislation that attempted to force you to pay Income Tax, NI's, penalties and interest on the money you've taken from your business in dividends.

As I've said before I do not support the tax planning approach that these people have used, but I am completely opposed to HMG and HMRC attempting to enact and enforce retrospective law.

It is a basic right that a person can have reasonable certainty that their behaviour is legal. For a government to attempt to retrospectively punish past activity because they've cottoned onto the fact that their past law was flawed is morally repugnant and goes completely against any sense of natural justice.

It is up to HMG to draft clear tax law that isn't open to interpretation, it is not the moral responsibility of a UK taxpayer to pay more than they absolutely have to.

I dont know why people keep going on about IR35, the 2 rules are a million miles away, it's a bit like defending a GBH charge on the basis that you seen a boxing match on the TV earlier and the police never got involved. One varies which level and type of tax you pay the other is just not paying any tax by nothing more than international money laundering.

ALso the revenue can cast up years back anyway outwith IR35 and BN66. BN66 was never a loophole, it was just 100% tax avoidance and as I said if it was the public sector doing it you would all be going fruitloop, that is why I do not accept the revenue are 'morally repugnant' or 'against any sense of natural justice'(???).

People should have to pay their fare share and paying nothing for years then bleating on about it when you get called for it is pretty rich. You take the chances and you take the risks.

[TykeMerc]

I dont know why people keep going on about IR35, the 2 rules are a million miles away, it's a bit like defending a GBH charge on the basis that you seen a boxing match on the TV earlier and the police never got involved. One varies which level and type of tax you pay the other is just not paying any tax by nothing more than international money laundering.

ALso the revenue can cast up years back anyway outwith IR35 and BN66. BN66 was never a loophole, it was just 100% tax avoidance and as I said if it was the public sector doing it you would all be going fruitloop, that is why I do not accept the revenue are 'morally repugnant' or 'against any sense of natural justice'(???).

People should have to pay their fare share and paying nothing for years then bleating on about it when you get called for it is pretty rich. You take the chances and you take the risks.

I've made no mention of IR35, IR35 has nothing to do with my point.

At the time when the people affected by BN66 were using their tax avoidance strategy, that strategy wasn't (arguably) covered by legislation to tax their income in what you have called a "fare" (I prefer fair, but what the hell) way.
HMG and HMRC as their enforcement arm have tried to assert that there was a relevant tax law, but they took many years to do it despite the scheme being declared up front to HMRC and have made a far from solid case. The case is now being tested in court.
I have absolutely no issue with HMG issuing new tax law that takes effect at a future date, but I find it deeply offensive that they have attempted to enact retrospection which is contrary not only to natural justice, but also to UK precedent.

Purely hypothetically how content would you be if HMG passed a retrospective law that taxed all UK football fans at 75% of their lifetime income simply for boring the rest of the planet to death? Would that be fair?

You're a complete hypocrite if you're happy to use tax avoidance measures of any kind and would later object if those measures were retrospectively changed so that you were forced to pay additional tax, penalties and interest.

Incidentally I am in no way financially affected by the BN66 case as I have never used the tax planning measures they used. I am however very concerned that if the principle of retrospection isn't defeated then it will be employed time and time again as a way to cover up for muppetry in HMG law making.

[Platypus]

<snip>

Good points well made! Couldn't couldn't have said it any better.

Using low salary and dividends is tax avoidance, IR35 attempts to correct the disparity by ensuring that everyone pays their 'fair share'.

I'm not involved in the MP scheme but it seems to me that those folks found a way of reducing their tax bill even further.

Same principle. If the government decided that IR35 applied to everyone in 'closed companies' who receive dividends, I'm sure you, like me, would be up in arms if they declared that's what they had meant all along and applied it retrospectively.

Well that's how I see it.

[eliquant]

If you feel so morally outraged that these people have avoided tax that could have been paid how can you negotiate the moral maze of avoiding Income Tax and National Insurance by paying yourself partially in dividends when you could take it all as salary? Surely you're exploiting a tax loophole too?

Maybe they should have paid the tax in the first place, I don't support the tax planning mechanism that they used, however this is where my views differ from yours.

It is perfectly reasonable that a UK citizen is entitled to order their tax affairs in line with current UK law at the time of the income and that's an overriding moral concern.

While there's absolutely no doubt that these folks exploited a tax loophole that's been a factor in every tax regime throughout history. People have always done their best to pay as little tax as they can legally get away with, to believe otherwise is naive to say the least.

I'm certain that you would be totally opposed to retrospective legislation that attempted to force you to pay Income Tax, NI's, penalties and interest on the money you've taken from your business in dividends.

As I've said before I do not support the tax planning approach that these people have used, but I am completely opposed to HMG and HMRC attempting to enact and enforce retrospective law.

It is a basic right that a person can have reasonable certainty that their behaviour is legal. For a government to attempt to retrospectively punish past activity because they've cottoned onto the fact that their past law was flawed is morally repugnant and goes completely against any sense of natural justice.

It is up to HMG to draft clear tax law that isn't open to interpretation, it is not the moral responsibility of a UK taxpayer to pay more than they absolutely have to.

Perfectly put. I've never subscribed to the "Mont Pellier" scheme but I fully agree that retrospective taxation where any government is allowed to change the rules in the past should be illegal. Where will it stop if it is allowed to continue ? Will they decide to tax us 26p in the pound instead of 25p from years 1987 to 2010, just because HMRC are "clarifying" what tax should have been back then.

This has to be stopped right now. Enough is enough.

[Incognito]

I am sorry but I do not fall for these "yes, I am in trouble but if you don't support me now mark my words YOU WILL BE NEXT " manipulation devices. Your point is as daft as the smokers who claimed that once they banned smoking in pubs they would ban drinking in them as well.

I am perfectly happy to argue my position over IR35 and I know that all my money has been taxed at some level, it is on another scale to take your earnings out of the country and bring them back in to escape all taxation which is what the BN66 brigade effectively did. They were fools to think they could get away with it.

Surprisingly I agree with every single word you've said.

I worked with someone that was with the MontP scheme a couple of years ago. He was trying to get me interested in it, but the way he explained it was basically you don't pay tax here, you pay it in the Isle of Man and the magic is in the trust scheme and the Double Taxation treaty. When I asked him how on earth he reckoned that when he lives and works in the UK he thinks he's going to get away with putting it through the IoM, he didn't really have an answer.

In my eye's it's not avoidance it's evasion, pure and simple. I run a limited company and I do my hardest to justify the fact that I consider myself a consultancy and not an employee. I have a web presence and I do odd tech stuff at cost to put other clients through my books. I have a business bank account and make sure that any expenditure from that can be justified as a company expense. I pay myself a reasonable salary and pay tax and NI offset against that reasonable salary. I honestly believe I could stand up in front of a tax commissioner and argue the fact that I provide a service to my clients. If anyone on that type of scheme could stand up and argue they shouldn't pay tax because they don't 'work' in the UK then I'd call them either a fool or a liar.

People bleating about their Human Rights being abused take the biscuit. I take no satisfaction in anyone being hounded by the taxman, but in my opinion it's their own greed that's got them in this mess and now they're bleating about how unfair it is.

An old saying:

'You made your bed, now you sleep in it'

[Incognito]

Contractors get their kicked. Mal has a go at them. And becomes poster of the year via loads of sockpuppets.

Its a strange place cuk. As a loon I feel right at home here.

Whilst I don't agree with some of what Mal says, I think he is a very articulate and intelligent poster who addresses quite a wide range of issues affecting contracting as a whole and not just one small self served interest like the person your thread would deem poster of the year.

And please qualify your statement. BN66 does not affect contractors, it affects a small subset of contractors who decided to go that route.