BN66/S58 update

[eek]

Well it's beginning to resemble a children's school playground in here. So I'll leave you kids to fight it out on the swings.

Considering you were the person who wished to create the fight in the playground I don't think that was the best plan.

You got angry and tried to lash out. I dread to think what the consequences of that will be but I think they could end up being very very expensive for you and others.

[BolshieBastard]

What are you blubbering on about you silly twat. You BN66 crew sure are a stupid bunch, there is no doubt. Some tax avoidance promoter got you lot sucked into a scheme and tried to exploit a loophole. It was not legal and if it was I am sure millions in this country would do what you idiots did. When the applicable tax rate was 40% and more, some sucker promised that you will pay 3.5% and you believed it and went headlong into the dodgy scheme. Not only that, you lot spent the "avoided" tax and are now whimpering about bankruptcy and losing your houses etc.

Add to all that I find it disgusting that some contractors on here like Doogie etc are trying to support you lot just because you are fellow contractors and belong to this forum. **** it ! I aint following that principle. I am not going to support thieves who tried to rob the country's coffers. Someone has to say to the face and I will say it. You lot should be sent to prison and made an example.

You seem to have personal issues. You must be danny alexander and I claim my prize

[AtW]

ATW, does your employer, err... sorry client, know that you spend all day on CUK.

If anyone knows the identity of ATW, please send me a PM.

Cheers

Santa

What do you need my identity for?

Well it's beginning to resemble a children's school playground in here. So I'll leave you kids to fight it out on the swings.

Asking around for identity of the poster right after inquiring whether his employer is aware of posting activity on CUK must be very mature.

Have not seen anything like this on here ever since I've started posting more than 10 years ago

[SantaClaus]

What do you need my identity for?



Asking around for identity of the poster right after inquiring whether his employer is aware of posting activity on CUK must be very mature.

Have not seen anything like this on here ever since I've started posting more than 10 years ago

Immature? Now that really is the pot calling the kettle black, Alex

[eek]

Immature? Now that really is the pot calling the kettle black, Alex

may I suggest you disappear back to http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ct-2008-a.html and keep praying that MPs don't see past your self serving clause which doesn't solve the retrospective bit of the 2008 act merely protects you from its impact.

[doodab]

While I fully agree that the people concerned had it coming I don't think it should be backdated beyond 2008. Blatently artificial or not, the loophole was there, HMRC should have closed it sooner and it's their **** up. This sets a dangerous precedent as there are much bigger pisstakes to close in the corporate world (phillip green anyone) and if HMRC start going after those retrospectively Britain's reputation as a place to do business will be in tatters. The few million it will raise is simply not worth the risk.

Anyone who has either kept on or joined up to one of these schemes since 2008 needs their head looking at.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Anyone who has either kept on or joined up to one of these schemes since 2008 needs their head looking at.

According to a recent National Audit Office report on marketed tax avoidance schemes, HMRC estimate that 20,000 contractors have used ebt/loan type schemes amounting to a tax loss of c. £2.3Bn.

From what I can tell most of these have sprung up in the past 5 years ie. since BN66.

I thought (and probably HMRC did too) that BN66 would have killed off schemes but apparently they've just got more and more popular.

[cojak]

ATW, does your employer, err... sorry client, know that you spend all day on CUK.

If anyone knows the identity of ATW, please send me a PM.

Cheers

Santa

I wouldn't try that if I were you SantaClaus.

Seriously, for all sorts of reasons...

[d000hg]

Of course they did cheat - they paid 3.5% income tax when everybody else in same position (without offshore arrangement) was paying 40%+NICs! Read a fooking definition on what "cheating" is - Cheating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -

"Cheating refers to an immoral way of achieving a goal. It is generally used for the breaking of rules to gain unfair advantage in a competitive situation. Cheating is the getting of reward for ability by dishonest means"

Cheating means breaking the rules/laws, not acting within the rules in an unsporting/immoral manner.

Please show me the law that states everyone has to pay 40%+ tax, because they don't exist. Rather laws state what % you must pay on income classed in different ways.

[eek]

Cheating means breaking the rules/laws, not acting within the rules in an unsporting/immoral manner.

Please show me the law that states everyone has to pay 40%+ tax, because they don't exist. Rather laws state what % you must pay on income classed in different ways.

I would be careful here. Many people dislike the use of artificial constructions to avoid paying tax when they don't have the opportunity to do the same.

Just look at the reactions of people to the film / other tax dodges that have appeared in the press.