BN66/S58 update

[NotAllThere]

It was not right to expect to get away with 3% (or whatever it was) tax. On the other hand, most kinds of retrospective laws are also wrong. If there was another way of recovering the lost income due to those who paid into this scheme that wasn't so grossly unfair, I'd support it. As it is, even though I think those who exploited this loophole were wrong to do so, I cannot support the government's action - it's a far bigger wrong than that of the tax avoiders. It also sets a dangerous precedent.

I suspect some of the offence that has been caused by those who are not 100% supportive of the users of the scheme comes because the BN66 thread is carefully moderated and expressing such opinions is not permitted there.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If there was another way of recovering the lost income due to those who paid into this scheme that wasn't so grossly unfair, I'd support it.

There is.

HMRC could take us to a tax tribunal under the law as it stood before 2008.

[Old Hack]

I did not know it is possible to lobby courts to change their decision.

Legal does not always mean OK.

Subjectively reasoning, It's not morally ok for somebody to pay 3.5% income tax when others in same position pay 40% even if it's legal.

Firstly, no many people pay 40% tax, for they have a staged area up to £30 odd K at 20% and nigh on the first 10k at 0%.

Secondly, what they did was legal. Now the government has said it is illegal. All this is fine. However, then the government said whilst it has been legal for the past 6 years, we've decided we're going to change that, and retrospectively charge people who did this for the past 6 years.

Imagine, if the government said that due to climate change, it was changing the way cars were charged road tax, and was doubling the money. That due to this change, they were going to retrospectively apply the new charges over the past 6 years, by reviewing all DVLA data, for all cars you have driven in this period.

Would you think that was right (not fair, right)?

Like you, morally, I think it's wrong to only pay 3.5% tax. However, it's such a subjective area. We had a debate on here not long ago about what was the right amount we, as LTD company contractors, should pay. Some thing paying yourself and your wife £8k a year and divvying the rest, is fine, whilst others thought it tax evasion. What is the right amount of tax?

I think it's plum crazy not to be getting a bit agitated by the government retrospectively changing anything.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Like you, morally, I think it's wrong to only pay 3.5% tax.

I can't comment on this here because previously HMRC have used posts on CUK in court against us, and it wouldn't be fair for me to say something which undermined our case. Let's just say I can see where you're coming from.

So far HMRC haven't collected any money from us but the prospect of them doing so has sadly already led to one guy committing suicide.

If they do succeed in enforcing BN66 and loads of people are bankrupted and lose their homes then others may do something stupid.

That's why I'm fighting this. My personal life has changed recently and I no longer care whether I have to cough up or not. In any case my liability is relatively modest and it wouldn't have affected me that much. I didn't bet the farm on it like others did.

[fullyautomatix]

I can't comment on this here because previously HMRC have used posts on CUK in court against us, and it wouldn't be fair for me to say something which undermined our case. Let's just say I can see where you're coming from.

So far HMRC haven't collected any money from us but the prospect of them doing so has sadly already led to one guy committing suicide.

If they do succeed in enforcing BN66 and loads of people are bankrupted and lose their homes then others may do something stupid.

That's why I'm fighting this. My personal life has changed recently and I no longer care whether I have to cough up or not. In any case my liability is relatively modest and it wouldn't have affected me that much. I didn't bet the farm on it like others did.

I cannot believe you and your crew are trying to manipulate somebody taking their own life into your propaganda. Talk about scraping the barrel. That is going too low. Who knows why he took his life ? Nobody leads a simple life and to try and take advantage of that is disgusting.

[fullyautomatix]

Firstly, no many people pay 40% tax, for they have a staged area up to £30 odd K at 20% and nigh on the first 10k at 0%.

Secondly, what they did was legal. Now the government has said it is illegal. All this is fine. However, then the government said whilst it has been legal for the past 6 years, we've decided we're going to change that, and retrospectively charge people who did this for the past 6 years.

Imagine, if the government said that due to climate change, it was changing the way cars were charged road tax, and was doubling the money. That due to this change, they were going to retrospectively apply the new charges over the past 6 years, by reviewing all DVLA data, for all cars you have driven in this period.

Would you think that was right (not fair, right)?

Like you, morally, I think it's wrong to only pay 3.5% tax. However, it's such a subjective area. We had a debate on here not long ago about what was the right amount we, as LTD company contractors, should pay. Some thing paying yourself and your wife £8k a year and divvying the rest, is fine, whilst others thought it tax evasion. What is the right amount of tax?

I think it's plum crazy not to be getting a bit agitated by the government retrospectively changing anything.

Yes, I would be okay with that. Provided it was the interpretation of the law that changed. If the law said that there is no tax if you car runs on battery, and some muppets went and fitted loads of AA batteries on their cars and then stopped paying tax, and the law changed to say that AA batteries sitting in the car does not count, I would be okay with that change.

HTH
BISDI

[cojak]

I'm against retrospection - you can't second guess what the powers-that-be will think up next.

But that's as far as it goes.

(And don't get me started on those greedy, stupid sods still plunging into EBTs, and I think of the providers as fraudulent criminals...)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I cannot believe you and your crew are trying to manipulate somebody taking their own life into your propaganda. Talk about scraping the barrel. That is going too low. Who knows why he took his life ? Nobody leads a simple life and to try and take advantage of that is disgusting.

OK I get the message.

[proggy]

Why is it morally wrong to try and pay as little tax as possibly legally, most contractors do this, they pay 20-25% when if they were a permie they would be paying 35-45%. Some people paid as little as 5% which was entirely legal at the time. HMRC are entitled to close this loophole and go for anyone still trying to use it. Retrospectively applying this is totally unfair.

[cailin maith]

I cannot believe you and your crew are trying to manipulate somebody taking their own life into your propaganda. Talk about scraping the barrel. That is going too low. Who knows why he took his life ? Nobody leads a simple life and to try and take advantage of that is disgusting.

I would guess Donkey knows more about the situation with this poor chap than you do.