New Thread
As we have now gone over 1000 posts, I have created a new thread:
http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...apter-3-a.html
Please continue the discussion on the new thread.
Thanks
DR
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued"
Collapse
-
Please dont send duplicate letters to Montpelier
Just been speaking to Montpelier.
It would be really helpful if everyone who reads this forum does not send letters such as the "Newsletter" to MP as it takes up valuable time and resources.
I am guilty of doing this too!
So once a standard letter has been brought to the attention of Montpelier, lets mention it here, so they don't receive lots of duplicates.
Thanks
Santa
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BrilloPad View PostI would love to know what HMRC think will get if they win for each tax year from 1987 up to 2008. though they probably are not sure themselves. and should they win quite alot will be uncollectable. and they won't win!
I wonder what there exposure to the various loan schemes is too!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View PostImpressive first post by Caliban. Interesting choice of username, like Malvolio, another comic villain from Shakespeare.
He certainly doesn't sound like an IT contractor!!!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BrilloPad View PostWhile agreeing with what everyone else above said - I really really hope Caliban does not give anything important away to HMRC. I would rather win and know nothing.
I hope that caliban is montpelier's barrister! And is gathering evidence from DR and others.....
Leave a comment:
-
While agreeing with what everyone else above said - I really really hope Caliban does not give anything important away to HMRC. I would rather win and know nothing.
I hope that caliban is montpelier's barrister! And is gathering evidence from DR and others.....
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View PostImpressive first post by Caliban.
Caliban, welcome to the forum.
Perhaps you'd like to introduce yourself and tell us of your interest in BN66. Are you effected by the potential effects of BN66?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by SantaClaus View Postok thanks and apologies to Caliban. It took me quite a few reads of the wording to work out what was being said.
He certainly doesn't sound like an IT contractor!!!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by SantaClaus View Postok thanks and apologies to Caliban. It took me quite a few reads of the wording to work out what was being said.
I particularly like his simple contention that to clarify or change are one and the same thing in our case.
i.e. has the action had an effect, yes = change, no = why bother
QED
In my case the effect is very clear, without bn66 I am solvent, with it I am bankrupt.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by poppy01 View PostIts a very concise argument against the very idea of retrospective changes to the law.
His point is we are the victims of an unlawful attack by government. It is the kind of argument I would expect MP to employ in the JR
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by SantaClaus View Postand your point is?
His point is we are the victims of an unlawful attack by government. It is the kind of argument I would expect MP to employ in the JRLast edited by poppy01; 10 November 2008, 06:15.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by caliban View PostThe state is entitled to make law and the citizen is entitled to know that law. In this manner an individual is able to organize his or her affairs in such a way as to satisfy statute.
While it is to be hoped that legislation is clear and unambiguous the reality is that there are occasions when it is not. On these occasions and where there is division it is the remit of the courts to provide direction.
It is of course legitimate for legislation to be amended from time to time. However the business of retrospection is to deny all or part of what was and to determine it never to have been. There is no label that can be attached to a retrospective initiative that makes it more palatable. Quite simply, if it has an effect then it is a change, and if it has no effect one may wonder why it is introduced.
Where a statute has been relied upon to determine the manner in which an individual has organized his or her affairs then it is a very serious matter indeed for that statute to be undone. Not least because it may put beyond reach the courts to which the citizen may otherwise have reasonably expected to have been able to petition in defence of a challenge.
Leave a comment:
-
Forgive me if I am blunt but the position is clear
The state is entitled to make law and the citizen is entitled to know that law. In this manner an individual is able to organize his or her affairs in such a way as to satisfy statute.
While it is to be hoped that legislation is clear and unambiguous the reality is that there are occasions when it is not. On these occasions and where there is division it is the remit of the courts to provide direction.
It is of course legitimate for legislation to be amended from time to time. However the business of retrospection is to deny all or part of what was and to determine it never to have been. There is no label that can be attached to a retrospective initiative that makes it more palatable. Quite simply, if it has an effect then it is a change, and if it has no effect one may wonder why it is introduced.
Where a statute has been relied upon to determine the manner in which an individual has organized his or her affairs then it is a very serious matter indeed for that statute to be undone. Not least because it may put beyond reach the courts to which the citizen may otherwise have reasonably expected to have been able to petition in defence of a challenge.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BrilloPad View PostAnd it gives you something to feed your rotweiller on?
You really should not refer to your better half like that
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by SantaClaus View PostLooking forward to some more "news"-letters from HMRC.
Every time they send information out, they incriminate themselves even more!
You really should not refer to your better half like that
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Contractors, don’t be fooled by HMRC Spotlight 67 on MSCs Yesterday 09:20
- HMRC warns IT consultants and others of 12 ‘payroll entities’ Dec 3 09:15
- How you think you look on LinkedIn vs what recruiters see Dec 2 09:00
- Reports of umbrella companies’ death are greatly exaggerated Nov 28 10:11
- A new hiring fraud hinges on a limited company, a passport and ‘Ade’ Nov 27 09:21
- Is an unpaid umbrella company required to pay contractors? Nov 26 09:28
- The truth of umbrella company regulation is being misconstrued Nov 25 09:23
- Labour’s plan to regulate umbrella companies: a closer look Nov 21 09:24
- When HMRC misses an FTT deadline but still wins another CJRS case Nov 20 09:20
- How 15% employer NICs will sting the umbrella company market Nov 19 09:16
Leave a comment: