Forthcoming General Election - send a message to the Chancellor NOW ...

[dangerouswhensober]

I will repeat my view that the various groups here MUST find a way to combine their resources and seek a solution for the several thousand people rather than a few hundred in the forum and perhaps a few dozen who are active.

Division by provider makes little sense in seeking a solution. HMRC know this and will pick off the weakest one by one.

I do agree with that Webberg. I also think that (given your previous employment as a minion of Sauron) you are the perfect person to act as 'Devil's Advocat' ...

BTW: The US may have a 'pay first argue later' tax system - but in the US any lunatic with the correct paperwork is legally permitted to buy guns and unlimited quantities of ammunition - not something we should aim to emulate over here, surely ...

[flamel]

https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Manag...ing-your-debt/

The above is Australia. They have had a pay first argue later system for a long time. I could pull up something similar for the US, Germany, Sweden etc.

The "survey" result from a self interest group carries little weight without seeing the questions asked, the format, the population tested, etc.

I'm sure if the question was ;

Do you think HMRC should be able to deduct funds from your bank account if they think there is tax due?

Then almost everybody says "no".

If the question was:

Do you think HMRC should be able to deduct funds from the bank account of somebody they suspect of tax avoidance but who is not co-operating with an enquiry?

Then perhaps fewer would say "no"?

On a personal level I object to APN because of the fact that an appeal cannot be made and the amount demanded in particular is not subject to independent review.

I object to HMG having cash in advance of final agreed liability ONLY because it puts even more control over timing in the hands of HMRC and history shows that they manipulate the Courts to advance winnable cases over more balanced ones.

The above and swapping links is ultimately pointless however. We are where we are. Find practical ways to solve the position.

I will repeat my view that the various groups here MUST find a way to combine their resources and seek a solution for the several thousand people rather than a few hundred in the forum and perhaps a few dozen who are active.

Division by provider makes little sense in seeking a solution. HMRC know this and will pick off the weakest one by one.

Good points, especially regarding people swapping comments to the already converted.
I note the Australian system - I wonder if they applied this retrospectively when they introduced it in the first place? (Probably not)
And I wonder whether HRMC have this system in place?
https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Manag...ious-hardship/
I'm almost certain they don't.

If the pay first argue later was applied, most people would know where they stood and manage their affairs in accordance. The problem for us is HMRC applying this retrospectively for ten years (or more in some cases), where the ability to manage is impossible in many cases.

What is needed is the equivalent of NTRT for EBT users - an actual, real, well funded group comprising experts in tax / tax law / dealing with HMRC - that could actually make a difference. I, for one, am prepared to pay, just like I would do for professional advice.

The other serious issue is that there may be tens of thousands of people affected who have no clue whatsoever about any of this. Only a very small proportion have even heard of CUK and of those, even less go as far as to join and post a comment. How could these people get signed up in a joined up way?

Many of us posters on CUK work full time, have wives, kids, mortgages etc and don't have the expertise anyway.

Any volunteers?

[webberg]

"It's in line with the opinion of perhaps 95% of the tax paying population ..."

Could I ask where you got that figure from ? (DotasScandal has revealed his sources above ...)

"... appears to be 'fair' ..."

Exactly how does being tried, found guilty, and punished by your persecutor (not an idependent court) with no opportunity to establish innocence before being punished 'appear to be fair' ?

"and matches the rules in other parts of the world."

Sure - India and Kenya (amongst others) have similar provisions for advance payment of disputed tax. But then in India (by law) the Government has to approve any (and every) work dismissal, and suicide is legal but failing isn't - you will be prosecuted. And in Kenya it is illegal to walk the streets with no money in your pockets (the reason being that if you have no money it is presumed that you will want to steal) ... Just because something is legal in another part of the world doesn't make it any more justifiable or suitable for the UK.

Also "It's not realistic to expect that this part of HMG policy will be reversed." - Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a duly appointed court with sufficient authority concludes that a law is wrong (in the sense of unjust) then HMG has no choice to modify or withdraw that law - that's the whole point of JR - and that is also the main reason the Government tried to get rid of the JR process last year ...

It's based on conversations I have with a number of taxpayers and those on various forms of benefits who I meet in the course of one of my projects. It has no scientific basis and I have not carried out a poll, weighted or otherwise. It such anecdotal evidence is considered inaccurate, by all means ignore it, but consider that it might be just as valid as answers to a loaded question.

You have not been tried, found guilty and punished. You have been put on notice that HMRC considers the tax planning you did to be ineffective and that you should have paid more tax than you did. Whether they are correct or not has yet to be established. The "trial" has not even started.

"Punished" is subjective. As far as I can see you are not being asked for a penalty or fine. You are being asked to pay tax on funds received.

I'll take your word on the situation in India and Kenya. The point I was making is that in comparison with other developed economies the UK was arguably "behind" in this area. I'm not justifying the policy, just drawing a comparison.

A JR does not question the "just" nature of a law. It tests whether the law as enacted is applied in a just and reasonable way. That includes the purpose, effect and mechanism for execution. The point of Separation of Powers is so that the judiciary can point out to the Executive the unfair (unjust if you like) nature of the law and ask that it be amended but the Judiciary does NOT make (or break) law. That is reserved for Parliament.

The opinion I gave on the intention of Parliament that the rules are here to stay is a personal one. Feel free to ignore it.

Such philosophy is good fun and distracting but the point remains.

Fair or unfair (and they are very subjective terms) the situation has to be dealt with and recognising the relative position everybody is in is a step towards that.

[webberg]

Actually, it's all there in clear text if you click on the link:

Q: "Do you support or oppose HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) having the ability to demand money they believe is owed to them in taxes without reviewing an individual’s self-assessment or proving their case in court?"

Support 16%
Oppose 66%
Don’t know 18%
Base: GB adults (n=2,011)

Methodology Note: ComRes interviewed 2,011 British adults online between 18th and 19th February 2014. Data were weighted to be representative of all GB adults aged 18+. ComRes is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules."

By the way, most surveys are commissioned by "self-interest" groups. That doesn't make them invalid...

Thank you. I should perhaps take more time to research.

The question is perhaps biased but probably no more so than the various surveys HMRC uses to justify its existence.

As I've said elsewhere my number was anecdotal and certainly does not have the bona fides above.

I must therefore qualify my earlier "95%" as being a personal view.

[webberg]

I do agree with that Webberg. I also think that (given your previous employment as a minion of Sauron) you are the perfect person to act as 'Devil's Advocat' ...

BTW: The US may have a 'pay first argue later' tax system - but in the US any lunatic with the correct paperwork is legally permitted to buy guns and unlimited quantities of ammunition - not something we should aim to emulate over here, surely ...

Love the "minion of Sauron".

The US is different. they publish a list of "approved" and "unapproved" tax planning schemes.

If you do one of the "unapproved" or one that is not on either list, you can be required to pay the tax before substantive discussion starts.

[DotasScandal]

If the pay first argue later was applied, most people would know where they stood and manage their affairs in accordance. The problem for us is HMRC applying this retrospectively for ten years (or more in some cases), where the ability to manage is impossible in many cases.

This. Sensible policy is about leaving people some sort of realistic way out, not crushing them with your heel because you can.
In our case, HMRC have pushed people into a corner with no options.
They should therefore not be surprised to face fierce resistance at best, and passive/aggressive behaviour across the board at worst (the laughable "settlement opportunity" shall not be mentioned here, as it has been exposed for what it really is).

Agree with the "preaching to the choir" argument to some extent, but think discussion is always useful. Mr.Webberg's views re HMRC and the possibility of having a sensible, honest discussion with them seem to have evolved somehow already... Probably not because of this forum, but it's good to share perspectives.

Also agree with the strategic plan. Certainly, there is enormous potential for things to be done if we gain a critical mass. However, you will find that if you keep asking for "volunteers", you will rapidly find yourself very alone (no matter how many pledges you get). You have to start doing things and hope others join you.
(Generally, you'd start small, but in our case, we have to start big as we do not have the luxury of time...)

[malvolio]

Actually, it's all there in clear text if you click on the link:

Q: "Do you support or oppose HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) having the ability to demand money they believe is owed to them in taxes without reviewing an individual’s self-assessment or proving their case in court?"

Support 16%
Oppose 66%
Don’t know 18%
Base: GB adults (n=2,011)

Methodology Note: ComRes interviewed 2,011 British adults online between 18th and 19th February 2014. Data were weighted to be representative of all GB adults aged 18+. ComRes is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules."

By the way, most surveys are commissioned by "self-interest" groups. That doesn't make them invalid...

How about if the questions was "Do you think HMRC should be able to deduct tax from your bank account if they think there is a risk it may be hidden away out of their reach?"...

[DotasScandal]

How about if the questions was "Do you think HMRC should be able to deduct tax from your bank account if they think there is a risk it may be hidden away out of their reach?"...

If my aunt had boll*cks, would that make her my uncle?

[webberg]

BIG GROUP

Let's indulge in some speculation.

A group is formed.

It decides that there are perhaps 4 scheme "types" that are potentially caught by HMRC's present interpretations.

It knows that HMRC is not prepared to be sensible in settlement and therefore the only strategy is to defend a number of cases at Tribunal in the hope that a less than 100% victory for HMRC will force them to the table.

The group also defends to extent possible, APN claims and other spurious attempts from the agency to extract funds. This is on the basis that civil disobedience and tying up HMRC resource is an effective strategy.

That may require 5 years.

We'll allow 4 full time staff (admin/website/etc) and a panel of experts. Accommodation, telephone etc. Say £200,000 a year tops. So £1m over 5 years.

"Experts" budget perhaps £1.5m over that period. That's pretty much one average (in terms of charge out rate) tax specialist full time for 5 years.

So £2.5m over 5 years. Let's say £3m.

If the cost per individual was £10 a month for 60 months, how many are needed?

£3m/60/£10 = 5,000 people.

How many contractors impacted?

I don't know. If 100,000, then we're looking at 5% membership.

To get to that value requires some form of advertising campaign and that in turn requires some seed funding.

There are "litigation funders" out there. They work by advancing legal costs in return for a cut of a "win".

They might be interested. More likely something like this forum could run a pre funding group and effectively put up initial funds.

I reckon perhaps £25,000 to run the ads and initial letter/email/website stuff.

How many people here?

500? That's £50 each.

So the deal is:

Put up £50. Put up some of your undoubted IT expertise. Hire a temporary project director (on a contract). Ask for volunteers for a steering group (I'd be interested). Elect/appoint a steering committee.

Spend the initial money over 6 months and see what the response is and re-evaluate.

If this is a "go", membership is £10 a month for 60 months (perhaps less/more). Alternatively pay £500 day 1 and then nothing until month 61.

Make sure to get anybody who is willing from NTRT. Make sure to include some PR.

Anybody?

[dangerouswhensober]

I'll go for that ...

500? That's £50 each.

So the deal is:

Put up £50. Put up some of your undoubted IT expertise. Hire a temporary project director (on a contract). Ask for volunteers for a steering group (I'd be interested). Elect/appoint a steering committee.

Everybody knows that IT contractors are well-off - personally, I use £50 notes to light my cigarettes, and £20 notes in place of toilet paper - I'll just have one less cigarette today - a small price to pay to initiate significant long-term group action.

My only caveat is that such a group action should not impinge on other actions. (For example, I'll be joining the Saleos when my first APN arrives, just to slow HMRC down - other potential members might also be part of various groups already).

Now we only need another 499 ...

(You also might want to ask Admin to make this a separate thread).