Down

[fullyautomatix]

AtW, how long have you had a car in the UK?

Let's say for arguments sake 6 years.

Well, we (TPTB) have decided to "clarify" a clause that now means that all ex-Russians who shag squirrells in Birmingham must now pay double.

Oh and we're going to make it retrospective so that you owe us 6 years back tax.

Pay up now.

Are you comfortable with a IT contractor earning a very high income , trying to exploit some loophole and pay just 2% tax ?

In the case of income tax dodgers retrospective makes some sense since it is not easily possible to catch the offenders as soon as they commit the crime.

[AtW]

AtW, how long have you had a car in the UK?

Let's say for arguments sake 6 years.

Well, we (TPTB) have decided to "clarify" a clause that now means that all ex-Russians who shag squirrells in Birmingham must now pay double.

Oh and we're going to make it retrospective so that you owe us 6 years back tax.

Pay up now.

I'll take my chances with that not happening, why? Because I did not buy car with artificially low price (like say dodging VAT on it), and I don't use dodgy fuel so I pay all what's due - there is nothing artificial in my arrangement of car ownership. The state makes more money by allowing me to drive my car so long as I pay road tax, insurance tax, massive duties on fuel - what I do is no difference with what normal course of expected action by person resident int he UK who owns the car.

Retrospection aspect has been addressed in the judgement - read it, all is covered there pretty well, for those too stupid or too biased (greedy) to understand it I'll spell it out: don't expect to pay 3.5% income tax when people pay 40% based on technicality and get away with it, you won't - no court in this galaxy would rule otherwise.

Your car example shows the kind of cretin you are - completely artificial and highly unlikely, if you had any brains you'd use CGT taper relief abolition as example of retrospective taxation (on prior owners of shares).

[MarillionFan]

Are you comfortable with a IT contractor earning a very high income , trying to exploit some loophole and pay just 2% tax ?

In the case of income tax dodgers retrospective makes some sense since it is not easily possible to catch the offenders as soon as they commit the crime.

WFAS and to be honest I reckon Churchill agrees.

We all know where the line is - Limited. After that you're playing with fire as the difference between the amount you pay for paye/corporation versus a scheme like BN66 widens then surely the 'ding aling aling' must sound.

[AtW]

In the case of income tax dodgers retrospective makes some sense since it is not easily possible to catch the offenders as soon as they commit the crime.

The judge said it very clearly:

"42. In disposing of some particular objections raised by the claimant, the judge held that the State was not obliged, before enacting retrospective legislation about the tax scheme, to test its efficacy in the courts and to allow the claimant, if successful, to keep the fruits of his victory. HMRC had made clear that they challenged the scheme and gave no assurance that there would be no litigation or legislation aimed at recovering the tax that the scheme had been devised to avoid. Those who had failed to make appropriate provision had done so at their own risk. "

HMRC should not be spending time trying to fight multiple loopholes while those who find them profit massively, having some limited restrospection in such cases is a good thing because it will limit such schemes and hopefully require less cost to maintain watch over cheats.

Now imagine everybody paid 3.5% income tax and no NI, disposable incomes boom, just imagine what kind of mortgage would be possible to get - house prices will take off for real!!!

[cailin maith]

Are you comfortable with a IT contractor earning a very high income , trying to exploit some loophole and pay just 2% tax ?

In the case of income tax dodgers retrospective makes some sense since it is not easily possible to catch the offenders as soon as they commit the crime.

The morals are not what is being dealt with. How much tax paid is not the issue. The retrospective nature of the legislation is the issue.

The fact is - they were within the law (no matter if AtW or anyone else likes it or not) when they used the scheme. HMRC sat on the knowledge of the scheme for years before finally deciding that they would use retrospective legislation to tackle it.

As for not being able to catch the offenders, that's rubbish in this particular case as it is clear from the BN66 thread that the scheme was disclosed to HMRC.

[fullyautomatix]

The morals are not what is being dealt with. How much tax paid is not the issue. The retrospective nature of the legislation is the issue.

The fact is - they were within the law (no matter if AtW or anyone else likes it or not) when they used the scheme. HMRC sat on the knowledge of the scheme for years before finally deciding that they would use retrospective legislation to tackle it.

As for not being able to catch the offenders, that's rubbish in this particular case as it is clear from the BN66 thread that the scheme was disclosed to HMRC.

I am a bit late on this case and know nothing, so I might be talking crap here.

Are you saying the isle of Man company disclosed to HMRC that they had a scheme which allowed a high earning IT contractor based in UK to pay only 2% tax ? And HMRC then said yeah, good, it all looks good to us, go ahead etc ?

[cailin maith]

I am a bit late on this case and know nothing, so I might be talking crap here.

Are you saying the isle of Man company disclosed to HMRC that they had a scheme which allowed a high earning IT contractor based in UK to pay only 2% tax ? And HMRC then said yeah, good, it all looks good to us, go ahead etc ?

It's worth looking through the BN66 threads but - the scheme was disclosed to HMRC (I think 2% is wrong, mind) in 2004 (I think) and HMRC said "we don't like this" but couldn't come up with a reason why it didn't work. However, they then fannyied about for years before finally deciding how to tackle it.

[AtW]

The fact is - they were within the law (no matter if AtW or anyone else likes it or not) when they used the scheme. HMRC sat on the knowledge of the scheme for years before finally deciding that they would use retrospective legislation to tackle it.

B0ll0x.

The court said they were not - HMRC, the Parliament and the People won the care fair and square: it should have just happened much sooner, people who got into it should be grateful they are not going to jail for withholding such massive amounts of tax.

I repeat - the courts (plural) ruled that they have to pay tax, the losers can play with words but in my book this means the scheme never worked (if it did they would have won in court).

Also, nobody mentions unfair competition that is clearly a factor here - person next door who pays 3.5% income tax when you pay 40% is clearly at massive advantage given that all other things are equal.

[Churchill]

Are you comfortable with a IT contractor earning a very high income , trying to exploit some loophole and pay just 2% tax ?

In the case of income tax dodgers retrospective makes some sense since it is not easily possible to catch the offenders as soon as they commit the crime.

I'm about as happy at this as I am about Greene and the Barclays et al exploiting their respective loopholes.

WFAS and to be honest I reckon Churchill agrees.

We all know where the line is - Limited. After that you're playing with fire as the difference between the amount you pay for paye/corporation versus a scheme like BN66 widens then surely the 'ding aling aling' must sound.

I'll say this again, don't ever assume to speak for me.

[MarillionFan]

I'll say this again, don't ever assume to speak for me.

Up your arse.