BN66 - your opinions wanted

[shaunbhoy]

Maybe BolshieBastard can come along and give us his impartial opinions on the fairness of it all?

[Arturo Bassick]

I disagree. The law is not simply about the "letter of the law", but its intention, and it is childish and immature to assume it is.

The intention of the law must be explicit in the letter of the law otherwise it is not the law.

What if a future Government via HMRC says that it has always been the intention of the law to tax all income no matter how received as earnings and we are back dating it to the year dot.

[DaveB]

Any scheme offering a way of paying very little tax on earnings in the UK while you are resident in the UK is going to be suspect.

It's easy to say with hindsight that scheme users should have been putting the extra cash away just in case it went wrong, but I'm sure the providers were very persuasive at the time about how legitimate their schemes were and how reliable the legal opinions obtained were.

Caveat Emptor, If it sounds to good to be true, etc, etc.

Having said that, HMRC new about these schemes from the outset, could have closed them down quickly and easily at any point in the last 7(?) years and made provision to prevent similar schemes being created with very little fuss or consequences. What they have decided to do by introducing retrospection with BN66 is far out of proportion to the problem ( as they see it ) and has huge ramifications for everyone, not just the original scheme users.

Ultimately my view is that if you dont want to pay UK taxes then don't live in the UK, but I do support the legal fight being made because of the wider implications of retrospection for the rest of us.

[sasguru]

The intention of the law must be explicit in the letter of the law otherwise it is not the law.

What if a future Government via HMRC says that it has always been the intention of the law to tax all income no matter how received as earnings and we are back dating it to the year dot.

That's why we have lawyers and law is considered a difficult profession - because lawyers really have to cope with varying interpretations of reasonableness.
In the case of BN66, the law has judged that it was unrealistic of people to believe they could pay nominal tax and has agreed to the retrospectiveness of retrieval.
But I doubt they would in the scenario above since it would be unreasonable

And I guess the vast majority of the general public would agree.

[pacharan]

I disagree. The law is not simply about the "letter of the law", but its intention, and it is childish and immature to assume it is.

Nonsense. If that were the case there would be no such thing as loopholes.

[sasguru]

Nonsense. If that were the case there would be no such thing as loopholes.

Eh? There are loopholes precisely because it is impossible to quantify every possible scenario.
If it was that deterministic we could abolish lawyers and have a computer program interpreting the law.
Which is obviously how some naive IT geeks saw it.

[Pondlife]

If you've never physically been to IoM/Jersey to work, then trying to claim taxation there is pushing your luck IMHO.

To take such a risk and then to have spent the gains is crass stupidity.

[Arturo Bassick]

Oh crap, I am going to agree with Pacharan.

I understand what SAS and you others are saying, but every loophole that has been exploited has still been a loophole. If what you guys are supporting were the case then each and every one should have been closed and retrospective taxes collected on those who knowingly exploited them.

Retrospection is wrong.

Would it be unreasonable of HMRC to explain that the intent of IR35 was to tax all freelancers as though they were employees and modify the law accordingly?

[sasguru]

To take such a risk and then to have spent the gains is crass stupidity.

I believe SantaClaus invested the gains in the market and using his Technical Analysis skills has made a fortune.
So he's not fussed.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/it-strat...-chaos-2085429

However, the government has insisted that the purpose of IR35 is to close a tax loophole.

Just as well they didn't do a very good job of it, and people can now rely on the (poorly drafted) letter of the law.