BN66/S58 update

[eek]

Does this mean AtW is on the naughty list?

He always was. SantaClaus is probably very near the top of it now tho.

[fullyautomatix]

Seriously what does this have to do with the subject in question ? nothing has been stolen ! the 'plebs' have just used a Tax Planning arrangement that was left open for the elite.

No, it was just plain theft using a loophole.

[d000hg]

No, it was just plain theft using a loophole.

Clearly it's not theft because it's your money you pay in tax.

[moira under the stairs]

No, it was just plain theft using a loophole.

That would be the answer I would expect of you..... go away a read all the facts on this case then see what the debate is about....

P.S. have a look at this UK National Debt Clock - No-nonsense Guide to Britain's Debt Crisis

HMRC are expecting a piddly sum from the users of this Tax Planning arrangement compared to the real Corporate Tax Dodgers they should be chasing. Someone mentioned smoke and mirrors... well the Government are experts at this.

[BolshieBastard]

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.

Really? I suspect most people think 'good on them' for getting one over officialdom. If government cant sort its tax legislation out correctly, that's their problem not mine \ ours.

A number of years ago, it was possible to invest £1m totally tax free in the UK by taking up several tax loopholes. IIRC terry wogan, cliff richard and a few other 'stars' of the day made use of these to avoid tax. The Government closed the loopholes but didnt use retrospective legislation. Wonder why that was?

Look, jack asses like atw, fully automtrix and a few others can pontificate and speculate all they want about this scheme. However, you need to look at it from the 2001 angle not here and now when we have retrospective legislation being used to backwards change something then legal into something now illegal.

Back in 2000 \ 2001, lots of contractors if not the majority, were concerned about IR35. I know about 4 contractors who actually returned to permiedom as they didnt want the hassle of IR35 hanging over them ie they could be contracting quite legally within the frame work of their contract then, several years down the line, hmrc open IR35 investigations, find them caught and retrospectively demand hundreds of thousands of pounds in back taxes and penalties. In others words, retrospection.

(People here who say they have made provision for 6 years IR35 back tax imho, are deluding themselves. If they have several hundred thou put aside, good for them but, I dont believe they do and probably have upto 12k put aside if that.)

There were many schemes promoting tax saving of which MTM was one. Anyone who says they dont use tax savings or avoidance is a rarity imo.

I attended a presentation by Gittins. He was a known tax adviser. Myself and a number of others did due diligence on him and it came back clean, nothing dodgey etc.

The tax planning used was laid out with examples of how wealthy people minimise their tax position. Gittins was up front about the loophole, he said counsel have reviewed it and agreed it was not illegal and was a true loophole in legislation.

So, having that presented to you, I wonder how many people would take advantage of say a car tax loophole that allowed them to drive their car untax on the road. Are people going to say 'oh, its a loophole as advised by counsel but I'll continue paying the road tax (which isnt spent on roads btw!), thanks very much' or, are they going to say 'Government's made a mistake, I'll avoid paying the road tax, thanks very much.'

No doubt some will say road tax doesnt equate to the sums under this scheme. However, add up all the motorist deciding to use the loophole and collectively, it would probably far exceed it.

Ask yourself, would the government wait 8 years to close this road tax loophole retrospectively then demand all the road tax due? How many motorist would say what they did was legal at the time so no, they wont pay?

Some people want to make mileage (sorry no pun intended) that a loophole is illegal or there are varying degrees of loopholes. I think that's naive. Loopholes are not illegal, they are legal. You either take use of it while its there or you dont.

If I had of got a sniff about this scheme being illegal, I wouldnt have touched it. I joined because it was legal. It also appeared to give me certainty regarding tax planning and put me outside IR35.

Whether atw, fully automatrix and others like it or not, the government changed the rules retrospectively 8 years after the event. That's not natural justice, its vindictive because someone found a financial loophole and legally exploited it.

It doesnt matter that the tax rate applicable for those in the scheme is 0%, 3.5% or 40%. If you dont make your legislation watertight, dont be surprised if people find ways around it. Should those who take advantage be hung out to dry?

Each to their own on that one but, my sense of justice say no, they \ we shouldnt. If your loophole is legal, good for you. I dont recall wogan et al being vilified for paying 0% tax on a million quid, neither do I recall them feeling morally justified in paying any back tax on it.

[sasguru]

Clearly it's not theft because it's your money you pay in tax.

Jeez what a dumbkopf.
Presumably you use the benefits society provides like schools, the NHS, the police and the armed forces.?
If you are arguing you want to pay less tax and privatise most of these that is a valid point - you then vote for your choice in the elections or emigrate to the majority of countries in the world that don't have such an infrastructure and where you have to pay for everything privately.
But while you are in the UK, do you really think its OK for people to pay 3.5% tax and use all these tax-payer funded services? That's where the morality argument comes in.

[d000hg]

Missed the point as usual Sas. If you do not pay the tax you are legally obligated to, it is not theft. Theft is taking something that doesn't belong to you, not failing to pay a bill. If your client doesn't pay an invoice, that is not theft either.

[sasguru]

Missed the point as usual Sas. If you do not pay the tax you are legally obligated to, it is not theft. Theft is taking something that doesn't belong to you, not failing to pay a bill. If your client doesn't pay an invoice, that is not theft either.

Playing with semantics doesn't make it any better.
In both your examples you are taking stuff you haven't paid for - services from the state in the case of non tax-payers and other services in the case of your client.

[BolshieBastard]

Jeez what a dumbkopf.
Presumably you use the benefits society provides like schools, the NHS, the police and the armed forces.?
If you are arguing you want to pay less tax and privatise most of these that is a valid point - you then vote for your choice in the elections or emigrate to the majority of countries in the world that don't have such an infrastructure and where you have to pay for everything privately.
But while you are in the UK, do you really think its OK for people to pay 3.5% tax and use all these tax-payer funded services? That's where the morality argument comes in.

If 3.5% tax is all people legally have to pay then yes. Hell, if it was legal to pay 0% tax as it was for some celebs and others who took advantage of that position, why is it wrong?

I've got to metaphorically laugh at these people who use 'morality' to justify their argument. So its morally OK to send young British boys and girls to some godforsaken part of the world to get blown up and maimed for life then, chucked on the scrap heap when they return home?

Moral argument? Please, dont make me laugh.

[sasguru]

If 3.5% tax is all people legally have to pay then yes. Hell, if it was legal to pay 0% tax as it was for some celebs and others who took advantage of that position, why is it wrong?

I've got to metaphorically laugh at these people who use 'morality' to justify their argument. So its morally OK to send young British boys and girls to some godforsaken part of the world to get blown up and maimed for life then, chucked on the scrap heap when they return home?

Moral argument? Please, dont make me laugh.

Your argument boils down to: "...other people are being winkers so I will be too".
Which is a crap argument and leads to a country being like Greece.
Did you use the NHS or send your children to school while you were on this scheme?
So why should people who in many cases were earning far less than you have funded this?