BIG GROUP

[webberg]

The submissions made were on time and in accordance with what was asked for. They have been acknowledged by the committee and we are warned that they may be published.

The committee does not want "evidence" of how HMRC is alleged to have treated taxpayers.

What they want is people with experience and expertise and people who are likely impacted by the legislation under debate - not previous legislation - to comment on how the legislation - under debate now, might impact the situation.

Looking for details of submission made on prior finance bills/acts is hardly meeting the criteria for this one.

I'm also not sure of the point of the criticism directed at us?

Yes Big Group is perhaps the largest unbiased grouping around, but there are other groups who represent (usually) members of particular schemes or the remnants of promoters who claim to have large numbers of clients. By far the largest group is those contractors who are not part of any recognised group (fee paying or otherwise).

For all I know you fit one of these groups? If so, then is it legitimate to ask why submissions were not made by these organised or independent people? Why single out Big Group? Have we done something to offend you?

Perhaps you made a submission of your own? If so, good for you. If not, then I'm unclear why you are criticising another?

[Delendog]

Delendog ,

Thanks for update. I am just surprised Big Group and WTT did not submit evidence earlier and in good time. Their member and clients are prime example of those who are and will be effected by this and would have added priceless insight. Missed opportunity.

Even Unite has submitted something on some other part of the bill on behalf of its members

Actually Luxcon you are looking at the evidence submitted for the last bill not this one. This one has no evidence published yet. Be good to check your facts.
https://services.parliament.uk/bills...ill201719.html

[luxCon]

Delendog

Delendog ,

Thanks for update. I am just surprised Big Group and WTT did not submit evidence earlier and in good time. Their member and clients are prime example of those who are and will be effected by this and would have added priceless insight. Missed opportunity.

Even Unite has submitted something on some other part of the bill on behalf of its members

[Delendog]

Please dont take this the wrong way and this is no criticism, but why your professional bodies (WTT included) were so late in submitting evidence?

We have discussed 2019 to death on these threads for the past 2 months.

Furthermore the deadline for written submission is the 18th.

Surely the BG has masses of factual evidence from its members and their circumstances that needs to be heard.

Who were the Tory MPs that voted against?? Please name them so that it can be communicated. I am in touch with my own local Tory MP who had a ministerial job until last year and is very sympathetic to the damage 2019 Charge can do. I can communicate the names of the MPs that voted your evidence out and maybe something can be done.

Hi Luxcon - I am obviously not WTT. But I also submitted evidence - the day made no difference the evidence was packaged and provided to Committee members yesterday 8th at 4pm ahead of the meeting today at 9.25am - obviously not enough time to read it. The 1st amendment tabled was for oral evidence to be given to the committee by professional bodies - this was voted out by 10 to 9, 10 tories voting no. You can see the members of the Committee by visiting the Gov website. You will also be able to listen to a recording of the meeting yourself on the Gov website.

Also any evidence received after that element of the bill has been looked at by the Committee is not looked at.

Hope that helps.

[luxCon]

Please dont take this the wrong way and this is no criticism, but why your professional bodies (WTT included) were so late in submitting evidence?

We have discussed 2019 to death on these threads for the past 2 months.

Furthermore the deadline for written submission is the 18th.

Surely the BG has masses of factual evidence from its members and their circumstances that needs to be heard.

Who were the Tory MPs that voted against?? Please name them so that it can be communicated. I am in touch with my own local Tory MP who had a ministerial job until last year and is very sympathetic to the damage 2019 Charge can do. I can communicate the names of the MPs that voted your evidence out and maybe something can be done.

[webberg]

Referring to the parliamentary scrutiny, has the Big Group or WTT submitted
anything to the committee?

I looked at the list of submissions and can not recognise Big Group or WTT.

https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...ay-urgent.html

Statements submitted are found here: https://services.parliament.uk/bills...ill201719.html

We made two long submissions yesterday.

This morning the committee recognised that in light of the mass of evidence supplied, they needed more time to consider it.

This went to a vote.

All the Tory members voted against an extension of the time the committee needed to do its job properly.

Something to remember when the next occasion arrives for you to decide who represents you.

[luxCon]

webberg

Referring to the parliamentary scrutiny, has the Big Group or WTT submitted
anything to the committee?

I looked at the list of submissions and can not recognise Big Group or WTT.

https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...ay-urgent.html

Statements submitted are found here: https://services.parliament.uk/bills...ill201719.html

[webberg]

Well, I missed some excitement it appears.

Whilst I respect anybody's right to comment, I would observe that generally positive comments are perhaps better received than negative.

Interesting that he has apparently "seen" our argument. There is no secret to the broad structure of it, but a lot of detail underneath and unless he has access to our data files, he may be under a misapprehension?

Anyway, I wish him luck in whatever solution he pursues.

[stonehenge]

A few years ago there was a chance, albeit a very slim one, that a group could achieve something.

But the loan charge has all but killed that off.

Having said that, there aren't many options.

Rock) settle under CLSO2
BG or other group
Hard Place) pay the loan charge

[ConfusedEasily]

I think you need to also read BP's to understand what is going on here. The fact is that HMRC was always going to win the arguments once they decided to attack the schemes. The thing people forget is that HMRC have a lot of things to do, so are no where near as proactive as they really should be.

Also decent tax advice is very expensive if you think Big Group was expensive go and ask for individual advice...

I agree with this. Properly informed advice is ******* expensive and your local accountant is unlikely to have the time to get their head around this.
If you are settling, then it needs to be bomb proof otherwise HMRC will come back for more.

Will the BG approach work? Who knows, but, if it fails, I'd rather have them negotiating the terms of settlement within a large group than doing it on my own.

FH is just a bit sad tbh.

As for Cojak? Well look at the quality of the moderation of this forum given the ****witts that contractors are. She's a bloody genius with a soul.