• 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!

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.

Previously on "BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued"

Collapse

  • DonkeyRhubarb
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • SantaClaus
    replied
    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:


  • ASB
    replied
    Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
    I 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!
    I haven't been able to find this documented anywhere. Normally I thought these measures were supposed to be "backed-up" by a regulatory impact assessment and this detailed things like anticipated recoveries, anticipated costs of implementation etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • poppy01
    replied
    Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
    Impressive first post by Caliban. Interesting choice of username, like Malvolio, another comic villain from Shakespeare.

    He certainly doesn't sound like an IT contractor!!!
    His posting looks very much like what I hope the verdict of the JR will be.

    Leave a comment:


  • SantaClaus
    replied
    Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
    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.....
    I agree, lets not give anything away that may be useful to the revenue in this forum.

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    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:


  • TheGadgetMan
    replied
    Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
    Impressive first post by Caliban.
    Agreed.

    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:


  • DonkeyRhubarb
    replied
    Originally posted by SantaClaus View Post
    ok thanks and apologies to Caliban. It took me quite a few reads of the wording to work out what was being said.
    Impressive 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:


  • poppy01
    replied
    Originally posted by SantaClaus View Post
    ok thanks and apologies to Caliban. It took me quite a few reads of the wording to work out what was being said.
    No probs took me a couple too. Caliban seems to know his legaleese.
    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:


  • SantaClaus
    replied
    Originally posted by poppy01 View Post
    Its 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
    ok thanks and apologies to Caliban. It took me quite a few reads of the wording to work out what was being said.

    Leave a comment:


  • poppy01
    replied
    Originally posted by SantaClaus View Post
    and your point is?
    Its 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
    Last edited by poppy01; 10 November 2008, 06:15.

    Leave a comment:


  • SantaClaus
    replied
    Originally posted by caliban View Post
    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.
    and your point is?

    Leave a comment:


  • caliban
    replied
    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:


  • SantaClaus
    replied
    Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
    And it gives you something to feed your rotweiller on?

    You really should not refer to your better half like that
    Ho ho

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    Originally posted by SantaClaus View Post
    Looking forward to some more "news"-letters from HMRC.

    Every time they send information out, they incriminate themselves even more!
    And it gives you something to feed your rotweiller on?

    You really should not refer to your better half like that

    Leave a comment:

Working...