If you cant pay an APN, would the judge rule in favour of bankruptcy

[DotasScandal]

So... You are against retrospective legislation and for natural justice, but APNs going back 10 years (the legal equivalent of "shooting first and asking questions later") are cool and we deserve it.
Ok...

Surely, with your experience and years, you do understand it's not about the merits of the schemes (which, by the way, were not created equal), but about the principle of crushing someone financially and psychologically with the objective of leaving that someone too destitute to seek their day in court.

As has been already repeated ad nauseum, 99% of people will pay gracefully if the debt is proven in court. A debt that is merely alleged by HMRC is a different matter entirely.

[MercladUK]

I'm not trolling those are realities, I've been contracting for several decades and examined many of the schemes as they were offered to me by salesmen and recommended by other contractors.
I looked at them all as too high a risk strategy at the time (which is a view that I'm eternally grateful I took) and stayed with straight Umbrellas and MyCo Ltd's, I've planned my tax affairs quite carefully but in a risk averse manner.
Every scheme I looked at all smelled not only of being too good to be true, but quite honestly reeked of taking the mickey, it was obvious they would be targeted at some juncture and the scheme providers would take their money and leg it leaving the punters to fight.

As for the last 5 years comment, it's no mystery that HMRC went on the warpath BIG time in 2008 it was well advertised, anyone daft enough to sign up for a scheme in recent years needs their heads examined.

I've not posted here to gloat, you will possibly be aware that I've actively supported the BN66 crowd, not because I support their scheme, but because they are being attacked with retrospective legislation which I consider to be an offence against natural justice.

This may be so, but WHY post in this thread? How did you think your "you are all stupid and deserve it" post would be seen?

I don't understand why you would want to post what you did other than to take the high ground. Just seems really pointless...

[TykeMerc]

I posted in response to the guy who was bemoaning the fact that he missed the boat in tax avoidance terms.

He clearly had no appreciation that he didn't miss the boat, he dodged a very large and indiscriminate bullet however from another thread on CUK it's clear he'd quite like to get into a scheme now....

If you chose to believe that telling the truth about schemes was an attack on yourself, then there's very little which can be done about that.

[webberg]

right then,

you cant pay an APN because your contracting days and financial rewards were part of a bygone era, so HMRC want their money but how are they going to get it?

questions i think are relavent:

- can they force you to sell your famiy home under joint names to release equity?
- can they extract money from your pension?
- can they deduct regular money from your salary at source? (using what type of calculation?)
- can they make you sell any other assets like cars, etc
- what if you are on benfits? that would be interesting !!!

i await your informed feedback

Subject to usual caveat about this not being my main area.

1. I think not
2. See 3 below - not until it's being drawn
3. yes - they will calculate what you need to live on and take the rest
4. Possibly - depends what they are
5. Don't know.

[BrilloPad]

I apologise for my post, wasn't trying to troll. Maybe my naivety got the better of me (much like my spelling and grammar).

I am new to this contracting world and it's hard to understand the complexities when reading the posts as on one hand you get told:
- if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is

But on the other hand get message:
- it's tax efficiency and within the rules


Was not my intention to derail the forum topic. I will continue reading as ultimately I want to contract in the most tax efficient manner but with little to no risk of being stung.

My post was probably due to frustration of reading the forums for the past couple of days and realising that contracting now (which I have just started) is probably too late to maximise tax savings which were available a few years back - but still that's no excuse for poor behaviour on my part.

If you had any decency you would f**k off now and not return.

I am stunned your posts have remained and you have not been perma banned.

[BrilloPad]

I posted in response to the guy who was bemoaning the fact that he missed the boat in tax avoidance terms.

He clearly had no appreciation that he didn't miss the boat, he dodged a very large and indiscriminate bullet however from another thread on CUK it's clear he'd quite like to get into a scheme now....

If you chose to believe that telling the truth about schemes was an attack on yourself, then there's very little which can be done about that.

And I agree entirely with you. Anyway trying any sort of scheme now is asking for it.

With hindsight any poor people trying to use a scheme designed for the rich was asking for it. No-one thought retrospective legislation would come along.

[NotAllThere]

If you had any decency you would f**k off now and not return.

I am stunned your posts have remained and you have not been perma banned.

We'll see where he goes from now. Naivety and ignorance aren't grounds for banning, and he's apologised fulsomely.

[NotAllThere]

This may be so, but WHY post in this thread? How did you think your "you are all stupid and deserve it" post would be seen?

I don't understand why you would want to post what you did other than to take the high ground. Just seems really pointless...

In this thread http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...58-fa2008.html TykeMerc's comments (and smeg35's) would not be permitted. Anywhere else, so long as within the general rules of the professional forums and not deliberate trolling, it's fair game. Even if it upsets people. It's clear also that TykeMerc was responding specifically to smeg35's queries. His response was entirely legitimate and appropriate.

[cojak]

In this thread http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...58-fa2008.html TykeMerc's comments (and smeg35's) would not be permitted. Anywhere else, so long as within the general rules of the professional forums and not deliberate trolling, it's fair game. Even if it upsets people. It's clear also that TykeMerc was responding specifically to smeg35's queries. His response was entirely legitimate and appropriate.

WNATS

He didn't post in the specific EBT or the NTRT threads. This was a question thread.

[ASB]

In terms of taking the house it may depend in some ways if you are:

Joint tenants - in which case it is jointly owned reverting to remaining joint tenants as others die.
tenants in common - which needs a deed; where independent shares are individually owned.

all joint assets (eg a bank account) are like the above.

assuming the debt is enforceable I would be mightily hacked off if a creditor could get their hands on a joint asset which I had funded; simply because of my joint tenants debt.

I believe there is not entire clarity in this area so would be trying to take advice. Possibly considering whether a notice of disassociation might help. Or a change in tenancy.