Why should my MP worry about retrospective taxation on avoiders?

[TalkingCheese]

It was also mildly irritating over the years trying to get small(inflation) increments in daily rates, only to be turned down due to another contractor happy not to raise their rate...due to only paying 4% tax.

It was one thing to have jobs moving offshore, but to have "brothers in arms" undercutting rates!

I dont know any contractor that is "happy not to raise their rate".

I understand your irritation. One legal argument boils down to proportionality. Is it proportionate to bankrupt anyone to satisfy the mild irritation that you talk of ? I used "mild irritation" sarcastically. Yours is a mild irritation and will not cause you and your family to be financially ruined.

[speling bee]

Retrospective legislation is only valid where it was obvious you were breaking the law and are exploiting a loophole not Government advice. They weren't they were obeying, the government has changed their mind.

If the current government advice is "X is allowed" and you do X then despite morality in a civilised country then you can expect that during that period you are obeying the law. Decisions made based on that law are valid and arranging your affairs to take advantage of that should be final.

If the Advice changes to "Only Y is allowed" and you continue to do X then its reasonable so suppose you are not obeying the law. If you do Y going forward you X days are perfectly valid.

If they change the law and say "you know when we said X was OK we were lying and you have to behave as if we meant Y" then they are now on a very sticky wicket. I look forward to them losing.


For example if they now prosecuted an off licence who sold me a bottle of whisky when I was 18 (which was nearly 30 years ago), because the off licence can only sell me whisky if I'm 21 nowadays it would be seen as ridiculous. The damages or morality of selling alcohol are irrelevant.

Just because its only money and the resulting victims can't afford expensive lawyers doesn't mean we can ignore the law.

I imagine once they sort out transfer pricing and royalty abuse if they try to apply it retrospectively they will be given short shrift. If however they find an existing piece of law and apply it retrospectively they MAY get away with it.

Legally valid or morally valid?

[normalbloke]

It was also mildly irritating over the years trying to get small(inflation) increments in daily rates, only to be turned down due to another contractor happy not to raise their rate...due to only paying 4% tax.

It was one thing to have jobs moving offshore, but to have "brothers in arms" undercutting rates!

No more irritating than competing with other contractors that have less expenditure ( e.g. by living local to the contract or having no mortgage) and thereby happier to work at a lower rate.

[Robinho]

Tax is immoral full stop.

Justified to an extent, but always immoral.

[speling bee]

Tax is immoral full stop.

Justified to an extent, but always immoral.

Morally justified?

[Robinho]

Immorally justifiable!

[speling bee]

Immorally justifiable!

Genius-boy strikes again.

[fullyautomatix]

Some would say that the retrospective legislation was introduced by illegal means, i.e. by misleading parliament. Protocols were not followed and as others have said no warnings were given. In fact HMRC couldn't give warnings because it was a perfectly legal scheme to use. Instead of giving some test cases time of day at a Tax Tribunal, which was initially promised, HMRC went for retrospective law changes. They knew they wouldn't win!

It's easier to defend HMRC when your not sitting with a £120,000 tax bill for working within the law. But a bitter pill to swallow surely if you can see that 3000 families are potentially going to be ruined whilst Amazon, Google, Facebook and Starbucks can continue to operate within their perfectly legal tax schemes without fear.

Big companies don't lie awake at night wondering how they are ever going to pay the big bill. I on the other hand do and the worry and stress this has caused me since 2008 has only made me stronger to fight it to the bitter end.

Retrospective taxation is unjust and has no place in a democratic society.

Put it another way - what's next for HMRC? Will it be you next or do you think you operate within the law? Do you think it's acceptable to change the speed limit on a road from 30 to 20mph and then, without warning, retrospectively fine all road users for going over 20mph?

Stop spouting rubbish. 2% tax on a 120K earning is legal ? You lot should be imprisoned for behaving in such a way. Pay the correct amount of tax and stop being greedy and the govt wont have to introduce retro laws.

[TalkingCheese]

Stop spouting rubbish. 2% tax on a 120K earning is legal ? You lot should be imprisoned for behaving in such a way. Pay the correct amount of tax and stop being greedy and the govt wont have to introduce retro laws.

So many inaccuracies. Ignorance is no excuse.

[escapeUK]

Yours is a mild irritation and will not cause you and your family to be financially ruined.

If the state wants to ruin your family as you put it,then I suggest you up sticks and prevent them. There are no prizes for living under an evil regime as the jews found out.