The Ban Hammer cannot be far away

[tractor]

...

ISA's and pension funds are government created schemes,using them as analogous to dodgy tax avoiding schemes that target a loophole in the system is idiotic. There are levels of risk and any reasonably intelligent (not overcome by greed) contractor knowing what HMRC are like with these dodgy loophole schemes would have weighed the risk against reward and opted to stick to normal Ltd operating.

It is not idiotic, I even cited an example of a government instituted concession to support my assertion. I am sure there are others.

[Unix]

Because there are degrees of appetite for risk. Everyone (now) knows what can happen when you blindly trust a financial organisation, remember Darren Upton? I wouldn't trust my accountant to pay my tax for me even though I have know him for many, many years.

For that reason, there is no way that I would pay my corporate income to any company whatsoever, regardless of the potential gain.

Even the government is not immune to ripping people off. People who paid into pension funds for decades were ripped off by none other than Gordon Brown when he abolished the pension tax credits.

So I didn't join any of these schemes simply because my appetite for risk was far lower than some contractors. It is that simple.

Even though it was obvious they would clamp down on the schemes, retro taxation is a very slippery slope none of us should want them to start on. What if they retrospectively apply tax to your ISA profits or your pension fund? Because once the door is opened, they would not think twice about any of those things.

ISA's and pension funds are government created schemes,using them as analogous to dodgy tax avoiding schemes that target a loophole in the system is idiotic. There are levels of risk and any reasonably intelligent (not overcome by greed) contractor knowing what HMRC are like with these dodgy loophole schemes would have weighed the risk against reward and opted to stick to normal Ltd operating.

[tractor]

...

If that is true then why wasn't every contractor on the schemes. They were too good to be true that's why. It was obvious that they would eventually stamp down on this.

Because there are degrees of appetite for risk. Everyone (now) knows what can happen when you blindly trust a financial organisation, remember Darren Upton? I wouldn't trust my accountant to pay my tax for me even though I have know him for many, many years.

For that reason, there is no way that I would pay my corporate income to any company whatsoever, regardless of the potential gain.

Even the government is not immune to ripping people off. People who paid into pension funds for decades were ripped off by none other than Gordon Brown when he abolished the pension tax credits.

So I didn't join any of these schemes simply because my appetite for risk was far lower than some contractors. It is that simple.

Even though it was obvious they would clamp down on the schemes, retro taxation is a very slippery slope none of us should want them to start on. What if they retrospectively apply tax to your ISA profits or your pension fund? Because once the door is opened, they would not think twice about any of those things.

[Unix]

I was not warned. And I know of no-one who was. Montpelier were pushing HMRC to go to FTTT. They refused and came up with retrospective.

HMRC have lied and cheated the whole time. Montpelier have proof of this. And MOntpelier have been singled out :-

The question of legality/morality was over long ago. The question of retrospection being right or wrong is over too. Now it is about whether HMRC can lie and mislead parliament.

If that is true then why wasn't every contractor on the schemes. They were too good to be true that's why. It was obvious that they would eventually stamp down on this.

[tractor]

I was not warned. And I know of no-one who was. Montpelier were pushing HMRC to go to FTTT. They refused and came up with retrospective.

HMRC have lied and cheated the whole time. Montpelier have proof of this. And MOntpelier have been singled out :-




The question of legality/morality was over long ago. The question of retrospection being right or wrong is over too. Now it is about whether HMRC can lie and mislead parliament.

Well, they got away with lying and misleading the PAC/Lords last year and again this very month over HSBC so wy not. They now run the country and have done for a while. Cameron and Gideon are just Lin Homers sockies.

[tractor]

...

To be fair everyone was warned about those schemes at the time, those on them were taking a big risk. Fair play to them to have the cahones to do it, I didn't. My question is will they ever apply a retrospective tax that benefits us. i.e. IR35 is abolished so all those who claimed inside can get all their years of tax back?

Cojones

Your last question indicates the medicine is wearing off. They are more likely to retrospectively raise the age of consent to 51 so they can fine people for having sex!

[BrilloPad]

To be fair everyone was warned about those schemes at the time, those on them were taking a big risk. Fair play to them to have the cahones to do it, I didn't. My question is will they ever apply a retrospective tax that benefits us. i.e. IR35 is abolished so all those who claimed inside can get all their years of tax back?

I was not warned. And I know of no-one who was. Montpelier were pushing HMRC to go to FTTT. They refused and came up with retrospective.

HMRC have lied and cheated the whole time. Montpelier have proof of this. And MOntpelier have been singled out :-

HMRC's ongoing vendetta against Montpelier

HMRC hoodwinked Parliament in to passing unprecedented draconian retrospective legislation. There have been unlawful raids on Montpelier's offices. Arrests without charge. Clients and staff interviewed under caution. Then the collapse of WG's trial.

There is further evidence in this recent FTT case. Note how HMRC attempted to treat Montpelier clients far more harshly than other promoters. It didn't work because the FTT ruled against them.

http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.go...64/TC04286.pdf

HMRC probably only did a deal with George because we was a deGraaf client, not Montpelier.

I don't think it is any coincidence that we are the first contractors to receive APNs. And this is despite the fact that HMRC know full well they are chancing their arm issuing them to us because the Montpelier scheme was not notifiable under DOTAS.

The question of legality/morality was over long ago. The question of retrospection being right or wrong is over too. Now it is about whether HMRC can lie and mislead parliament.

[d000hg]

Not sexism. Just pointing out a biological fact.

So standing in the street shouting "look at that man, he's BLACK. Look, there's loads of black people everywhere" wouldn't be racist because it's true?

[Unix]

Brillo's link is to someone trolling in the NTRT thread. Some windup merchant telling them they all deserve it.

To be fair everyone was warned about those schemes at the time, those on them were taking a big risk. Fair play to them to have the cahones to do it, I didn't. My question is will they ever apply a retrospective tax that benefits us. i.e. IR35 is abolished so all those who claimed inside can get all their years of tax back?

[BrilloPad]

So sexism is more tolerable than racism on CUK?

Not sexism. Just pointing out a biological fact.

I think nature is very sexist as only women have babies. I demand a womb! Or at least you can all support my right to have a womb.....

PS I dont know why the comment was left on the NTRT forum. It should have been removed. And admin published the poster's email publicly.

[Pondlife]

Perhaps, but only a cyclist could think that all periods start at the end of a calendar month

Everything syncs via the cloud these days. Maybe that's it.

[tractor]

...

Brillo's link is to someone trolling in the NTRT thread. Some windup merchant telling them they all deserve it.

Perhaps, but only a cyclist could think that all periods start at the end of a calendar month

[Pondlife]

So sexism is more tolerable than racism on CUK?

Brillo's link is to someone trolling in the NTRT thread. Some windup merchant telling them they all deserve it.

[d000hg]

So sexism is more tolerable than racism on CUK?

[BrilloPad]

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post2060370

To be fair, it is the end of the month when most cojak bannings happen. I wonder why?