2019 tax charge - consultation preparation

[difficulttimes]

Thanks DR.

Also I'm definitely not buying that you aren't an HMRC officer- even the most anti- loan scheme accountants and other taxpayers on this and other forums see how unjust the APN legislation is. That is the one common link. It sounds like the brainwashing has been effective with you though..

[AtW]

Also I'm definitely not buying that you aren't an HMRC officer

I am NOT an HMRC officer.

I would have made a great one though

Peace

[eek]

Thanks DR.

Also I'm definitely not buying that you aren't an HMRC officer- even the most anti- loan scheme accountants and other taxpayers on this and other forums see how unjust the APN legislation is. That is the one common link. It sounds like the brainwashing has been effective with you though..

If we are talking Atw, we know what he does for a living (when not annoying some on here). His majestic business has nothing to do with HMRC although HM is rather impressed in what his company does...

[SomeDude]

If we are talking Atw, we know what he does for a living (when not annoying some on here). His majestic business has nothing to do with HMRC although HM is rather impressed in what his company does...

Are you sure about "nothing to do with HMRC"? From reading his posts, my bet was on Behavioural Insights Team (the "Nudge Unit"), but they work for HMRC now, nudging contractors...

[ASB]

It's a slow day. But you are right. Should not be playing this game.

I think you should actually. AtW has his own perceptions; they may or may not be accurate. Certainly some are not in my view.

However, I am pretty sure those attitudes are very close to the average passenger on the Clapham omnibus who is simply lookng at what was attempted to be achieved (or possibly subverted) and how rather than the somewhat unreasonable way the gov and hmrc have behaved over thas 15 years this has actually be going along for.

[difficulttimes]

Possibly, but from my dealings when I speak to people about the situation they find the whole paying up before litigation has happened really had to fathom and understand. They may think I was stupid for participating in the first place (that is probably a given) but the retrospective angle of how an APN operates is something they don't necessarily agree nor understand how a Government are able to roll it out.

But saying that High Court judges seem okay with APNs, which absolutely shocks me but from what I read JRs are rarely successful in any case. They seem to always back Parliament.
The upcoming Supreme Court case will be interesting but unless they are able to find 'new' information then I would expect the same ruling as the High Court.

This is way off topic but that's all due to our resident pest.

[ASB]

I wonder if you get more sympathy because those you talk to know you are involved?

I am not. However those I have talked to, as average people have generally expressed a view of "serves them right". Explaining the retroactive nature and hmrcs actions that sometimes changes to "serves them right, but it is a little harsh".

It is only really those few I know with a legal or accounting background who recognise actions by hmrc are at best incredibly unreasonable and at worst subversive. Equally there is thought that backdating to the "put it beyond doubt" statement in parliament is reasonable (2008 I think).

The problem isthat the government has managed to move a moralistic attitude to taxation right up the agenda. This is sad. You dont need any law just a major vilification process.

There is absolutely no place for this in our tax code. Perceived undesirable effects should be prospectively legislated. It is a legal matter. Not a moral one.

[DotasScandal]

I think you should actually. AtW has his own perceptions; they may or may not be accurate. Certainly some are not in my view.

No.
I'll debate with most people, except the (blatantly) intellectually dishonest.
In the case of our anti-evil-tax-avoiders crusader, his approach is sectarian and his "arguments", a big blur of facts, opinions, and judgments (HMRC is missing out on a top official indeed). It's obvious he has his own truth, which he is not interested in reexamining in the light of facts. This is no basis for a discussion.
Plus the vitriolic soundbites he likes to drop here and there disqualify his points wholesale.

[Old Greg]

I'm assuming from the rather confused slurring of fact and opinion above that the ATW poster has never actually worked a tax case?

The timetable in all tax litigation is with HMRC. They decide when to take a case, when to delay it because they have found a "better" set of facts and when to accelerate it.

They talk a lot of nonsense that is lapped up by the press about rich taxpayers who "win" by creating delay but that is a) not true and b) applies to about 5% of those they investigate.

Here is a FACT.

A company I worked for had international operations. Some of those had to be audited locally before their tax position could be signed off. Sometimes that required a few years post the year end to complete. This meant that the final group tax calculations (including foreign tax credits etc) could not be agreed until all those audits happened.

The year I joined that company, tax computations for the previous 12 years were "open", i.e. unagreed.

The year I left that company (12 years later), 18 of the previous years were unagreed.

Of those 12 original years and 18 subsequent years, just 5 and 6 respectively were because of foreign tax authority audit.

The remainder was because of paralysing indecision in HMRC who wanted desperately to extract more cash from a compliant operation but were frustrated by the application of law by the tax department. And believe me, they tried everything from smooching the executive to threats of "putting you out of business". All litigations launched by HMRC in that time either lost or were abandoned.

Those are FACTS.

Those are not PR stories planted by HMRC in a complaint press.

That is why HMRC fails to collect from multinational business and instead goes after individuals who don't have dozens of well paid tax people.

That is why HMRC is inherently unfair in its treatment of contractors.

Now, I don't mind you having an opinion, that's your to enjoy, but to try and argue opinion as fact and justification for a blatantly unfair bullying campaign either means that you continue to ignore the facts, are in denial, or are perhaps an HMRC officer?

Last post in response to any more of this nonsense.

Let's get the thread back on track or just abandon it and move to taxtopics.

When I was contracting in the UK, I always found HMRC more than fair, and had no hassle at all, while enjoying significant tax advantages with my Ltd company, through a low salary, dividends, income splitting with my spouse and travel expenses.

So it's perhaps not a universal experience that HMRC is inherently unfair.

[Old Greg]

I wonder if you get more sympathy because those you talk to know you are involved?

I am not. However those I have talked to, as average people have generally expressed a view of "serves them right". Explaining the retroactive nature and hmrcs actions that sometimes changes to "serves them right, but it is a little harsh".

It is only really those few I know with a legal or accounting background who recognise actions by hmrc are at best incredibly unreasonable and at worst subversive. Equally there is thought that backdating to the "put it beyond doubt" statement in parliament is reasonable (2008 I think).

The problem isthat the government has managed to move a moralistic attitude to taxation right up the agenda. This is sad. You dont need any law just a major vilification process.

There is absolutely no place for this in our tax code. Perceived undesirable effects should be prospectively legislated. It is a legal matter. Not a moral one.

However, when Parliament responds with retrospective legislation, which is legal, the response come that it is not moral. It's a funny old world.