What's the big deal with BN66?

[BolshieBastard]

I bow to your superior legal knowledge.

(and do you honestly think the top 10% of earners in this country pay ~40% tax?????? .... or even those contractors working through a Ltd sharing out dividends etc?... boy, are you living in a parallel utopian universe...)

Yes he probably does because he's a ******* nutcase. I have him on ignore.

A lot of ill informed people on this thread though. Although the scheme was legal, many people here consider it to be illegal, dodgey or 'cheating' as someone posted.

None of them seem to stop for one moment and think ok it was legal but 8 years later, HMRC had retrospective legislation introduced to make the IoM scheme we were in, illegal.

They havent yet grasped that HMRC will, if our appeal fails, look to introduce further retrospective changes. Also, HMRC will look to use the judge's statement of paying 'one's fair share of taxation' as the norm irrespective of what the laws allows to be claimed to lower one's tax bill.

If people dont believe me \ us, fine, wait and see. They may think their tax planning is OK now but what about in say 10 years time and retrospective legislation is introduced to change what was legal and allowable is deemed not legal or allowable in 2020?

HMRC has now got new powers to obtain from one's accountant's, details of the tax planning within the current law your accountant has given you. So anyone who thinks they dont have a thing to worry about might want to think about it.

As far as pcg goes, they can **** right off so whoever is concerned they may cancel their subscription doesnt have anything to worry about IMO.

[AtW]

I bow to your superior legal knowledge.

It's not legal knowledge it's common sense plus risk management. Would you buy a half price otherwise expensive thingy from a bloke in a pub? If it's too good to be true then it probably is.

People who pay themselves via dividends (I have not done it yet) would have their company pay corporate tax, so it's not going to be "taking the piss 3.5%".

[Incognito]

Rant, rant, rant

A lot of ill informed people on this thread though. Although the scheme was legal, many people here consider it to be illegal, dodgey or 'cheating' as someone posted.

Rant, rant, rant

Actually you BolshieBastard I very much doubt any court in this land is going to agree with you that the scheme 'was' legal. HMRC clearly put legislation in place to avoid people abusing the DT scheme in the IoM. Mntp came up with some sneaky backdoor route to try and circumvent the DT thing using another entity in the UK. However you dress it up the scheme was thought up to exploit the loophole that the legislation was meant to be plugging.

Now your esteemed cheer leading crowd over in Bn66 may think we have a codified law, but the truth in the matter is that the UK has a common law system which develops itself through interpretation of legislation. It amazes me that someone could come out and quote Denning as someone that would have been on your side. He would have hung you lot out to dry. The man was all about equity and fairness which your case is not; your case is about exploiting the law to gain financial advantage.

[AtW]

Actually you BolshieBastard I very much doubt any court in this land is going to agree with you that the scheme 'was' legal. HMRC clearly put legislation in place to avoid people abusing the DT scheme in the IoM. Mntp came up with some sneaky backdoor route to try and circumvent the DT thing using another entity in the UK. However you dress it up the scheme was thought up to exploit the loophole that the legislation was meant to be plugging.

Now your esteemed cheer leading crowd over in Bn66 may think we have a codified law, but the truth in the matter is that the UK has a common law system which develops itself through interpretation of legislation. It amazes me that someone could come out and quote Denning as someone that would have been on your side. He would have hung you lot out to dry. The man was all about equity and fairness which your case is not; your case is about exploiting the law to gain financial advantage.

You infidel!!!

We are totally entitled to pay 3.5% of tax, only suckers pay the full rate of up to 40%!!!

And it's all Revenue's fault if they are too stupid to let us have it at 3.5%!

Yours,

BigBastard

[normalbloke]

It's not legal knowledge it's common sense plus risk management. Would you buy a half price otherwise expensive thingy from a bloke in a pub? If it's too good to be true then it probably is.

People who pay themselves via dividends (I have not done it yet) would have their company pay corporate tax, so it's not going to be "taking the piss 3.5%".

Probably not first up. But if I'd done due diligence, researched the source providing it, and got a written opinion from a top Tax Barrister about the legality of the 'expensive thingy', then I might, yes.

[normalbloke]

Actually you BolshieBastard I very much doubt any court in this land is going to agree with you that the scheme 'was' legal. HMRC clearly put legislation in place to avoid people abusing the DT scheme in the IoM. Mntp came up with some sneaky backdoor route to try and circumvent the DT thing using another entity in the UK. However you dress it up the scheme was thought up to exploit the loophole that the legislation was meant to be plugging.

Now your esteemed cheer leading crowd over in Bn66 may think we have a codified law, but the truth in the matter is that the UK has a common law system which develops itself through interpretation of legislation. It amazes me that someone could come out and quote Denning as someone that would have been on your side. He would have hung you lot out to dry. The man was all about equity and fairness which your case is not; your case is about exploiting the law to gain financial advantage.

My God, I have had my fill of armchair lawyers weaned on Ally McBeal.

No one has yet come up with a legal reason why the scheme didn't work. HMRC tried for 7 years to get one and failed at every attempt. Thats why they resorted to changing the law... and backdating it. Even the Judge in the JR who's opinionated moral compass overcame a dispassionate argument of the legalities admitted at one stage it was.

As I said, it appears what's written in the statute books no longer applies - opinion is the new legislative weapon of choice.

Reading throught your earlier posts, your avatar neatly sums up what you are saying. Learn the facts. If you have an issue with fairness and morality, start looking at the people who wrote the laws and the present Government.

I'm off.. you just don't get how significant all this is do you?.. I suggest you quietly go back to guarding wooden bridges in Scandanavia.

[normalbloke]

Misssed this gem

"your case is about exploiting the law to gain financial advantage" .

Like your ISA's then....

[AtW]

Probably not first up. But if I'd done due diligence, researched the source providing it, and got a written opinion from a top Tax Barrister about the legality of the 'expensive thingy', then I might, yes.

I wouldn't if the rightful owner (HMRC) warns that such purchases are wrong in their view and people who engage in it are going to have trouble keeping those purchases.

[BolshieBastard]

My God, I have had my fill of armchair lawyers weaned on Ally McBeal.

No one has yet come up with a legal reason why the scheme didn't work. HMRC tried for 7 years to get one and failed at every attempt. Thats why they resorted to changing the law... and backdating it. Even the Judge in the JR who's opinionated moral compass overcame a dispassionate argument of the legalities admitted at one stage it was.

As I said, it appears what's written in the statute books no longer applies - opinion is the new legislative weapon of choice.

Reading throught your earlier posts, your avatar neatly sums up what you are saying. Learn the facts. If you have an issue with fairness and morality, start looking at the people who wrote the laws and the present Government.

I'm off.. you just don't get how significant all this is do you?.. I suggest you quietly go back to guarding wooden bridges in Scandanavia.

Exactly NB. This is the lack of knowledge people display. Its also totally inaccurate. They wont understand this until they find HMRC knocking on their door saying 'it doesnt matter that you organised your tax affairs in line what was legal, we've changed the law so what was legal is now illegal.'

Not only that, when HMRC comes along and says 'yes you paid your tax but after looking further into your finances, we have decided you havent paid your fair share of tax so we want more from you.'

Some morons on here can call it a rant if they want but, really, they have their head up their backside.

I havent done anything dodgey or cheated in my life. I didnt even claim the child tax credits for my 2 kids even though I was entitled to a small amout. Whenevr I've been out of contract, i never claimed anything from the state even though I was entitled to. Even know while im out of contract, I havent claimed any benefit. There is no money coming into my household at this time.

It'll be that way until I secure my next contract.

The MP scheme was legal until retrospective legislation made it illegal some 8 years afterwards.

If it was illegal in 2001, I wouldnt have joined the scheme. And that's the bottom line.

[AtW]

"your case is about exploiting the law to gain financial advantage" .

Like your ISA's then....

ISAs are explicitly approved by Govt. You still have to pay tax in your income in the first place, only not on interest you gain, which means bugger all loss tax wise.

If the whole country start using ISAs it won't result in massive loss of tax, unlike that scheme that would otherwise (in words of the judge) allow everyone drop their income tax paid to virtually zero.