Down

[cailin maith]

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.

Sure, sure - whatever you say.

[MarillionFan]

To be Sure, to be sure - whatever you say.

ftfy

[fullyautomatix]

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

Will you be happy if all the high earners in the country, say 100K per year, paid 2% tax using some loophole and you paid your 40% etc tax ?

I am struggling to understand why you are supporting the case. In the end proper tax payers like us are the losers if this tax dodging scheme goes on, it has bought countries like Greece and Italy to the knees already. I am happy that HMRC are purusing cases like this as a warning that an individual cannot expect to pay 2% tax in UK. Its just piss take.

[Incognito]

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.

HMRC disputed their tax returns. Just because it took ~6 years for them to bring a test case is neither here nor there. Their scheme providers were telling them not to worry, they've not got a leg to stand on, blah blah blah. They knew that HMRC did not accept their returns, they just thought that they'd be able to do feck all about it. They can't claim they have been fully compliant and didn't see this coming.

BN66 was about clarifying existing legislation that was being exploited in cases like this. It was not a change and hence does not apply retrospectively. It is as the law has always been and this is why they have very large interest bills. The argument is they should have paid the correct tax at the time.

I have not read the judgement (working through it now), but it would seem the COA agree it wasn't a change either.

[AtW]

Sure, sure - whatever you say.

It's the court who says it, second time around: Huitson, R (on the application of) v Revenue and Customs [2011] EWCA Civ 893 (25 July 2011)

Have you read it?

I am sure it will be appealed but the end result will not be any different (apart from more compound interest on unpaid tax).

[Churchill]

Will you be happy if all the high earners in the country, say 100K per year, paid 2% tax using some loophole and you paid your 40% etc tax ?

I am struggling to understand why you are supporting the case. In the end proper tax payers like us are the losers if this tax dodging scheme goes on, it has bought countries like Greece and Italy to the knees already. I am happy that HMRC are purusing cases like this as a warning that an individual cannot expect to pay 2% tax in UK. Its just piss take.

It has nothing to do with whether I'm happy about the amount that someone else pays in income tax.

I'm beyond that kind of petty jealousy.

[AtW]

I'm beyond that kind of petty jealousy.

What's there to be jealous about you idiot?

Massive tax bill with compound interest?

Years of worry and hope that court overturns crazy case based on technicality?

Having to dispose of your assets (house) during downturn to cover massive bill?

The real sad part is that it takes so long for justice to be served - the judge said the case was "unusual", too right - it should take 5 minutes to decide that a UK resident providing services to UK based clients whilst being in UK should pay full UK income tax on all earnings (or pay corp tax + dividends route if they are limited).

[Incognito]

It has nothing to do with whether I'm happy about the amount that someone else pays in income tax.

I'm beyond that kind of petty jealousy.

Jealousy? It's nothing to do with jealousy. I don't care if you have a nice shiny R8 and I don't. It's about playing the game fairly. They knew fine well they were exploiting a loophole. It's about taking the piss.

[Churchill]

Jealousy? It's nothing to do with jealousy. I don't care if you have a nice shiny R8 and I don't. It's about playing the game fairly. They knew fine well they were exploiting a loophole. It's about taking the piss.

I was responding to AtW's specific question about how I felt about how much or how little someone else paid in tax.

Btw, there's nothing "fair" about taxation.

[AtW]

I was responding to AtW's specific question about how I felt about how much or how little someone else paid in tax.

It was not my question cretin.