Reply to: Human Rights

[Zigenare]

How do you mean, Churchill?

Public sector IR35 was implemented last year, are you asking if it can be retrospectively applied to private sector from the time it was applied to public sector?

If not earlier.

[fullyautomatix]

What about retrospectively?

How do you mean, Churchill?

Public sector IR35 was implemented last year, are you asking if it can be retrospectively applied to private sector from the time it was applied to public sector?

[vetran]

Retrospective legislation happens all the time all around the world.

Losing ability to go to ECHR means that there will be no limit as to how bad it could be in the future (but applied to the past).

Its alright we can still send Brexiteers to Nuremberg where they deserve to be!

[AtW]

Did the ECHR stop UK Parliament from passing retrospective legislation? (Otherwise what are you on about?)

Retrospective legislation happens all the time all around the world.

Losing ability to go to ECHR means that there will be no limit as to how bad it could be in the future (but applied to the past).

[vetran]

I hope they are golden paperclips.

forged in a golden shower of young virgins (AssGoo & AtW apparently) !

[NotAllThere]

Did the ECHR stop UK Parliament from passing retrospective legislation?
(Otherwise what are you on about?)

It was decided somewhere along the line that it isn't retrospective, so the point is moot.

[Bean]

Parliament is sovereign, so it can do it.

The only saving grace was EU Court of Human rights, but morons like you voted us out of it...

Did the ECHR stop UK Parliament from passing retrospective legislation?
(Otherwise what are you on about?)

[AtW]

What about retrospectively?

Parliament is sovereign, so it can do it.

The only saving grace was EU Court of Human rights, but morons like you voted us out of it...

[Zigenare]

stop your bulltulip donkeyrhubarb. Getting paid in loans and paying no tax on half a million quid of earnings is not legal avoidance, it’s plain evasion. The law has caught up with you and now you want a judge to believe that your human rights are being violated. Nonsense. Public sector reforms can go private, I have no issues with that. I won’t try and find a scheme to avoid it.

What about retrospectively?

[Old Greg]

Which is why LCAG are going to the courts?

Similarly, when the public sector reforms go private, and all CUK users are deemed inside IR35, there will be no sympathy.

And when contractors are deemed inside IR35, they will pay the required taxes. So no sympathy will be required.

[AtW]

stop your bulltulip donkeyrhubarb.

Is it him?

[fullyautomatix]

Which is why LCAG are going to the courts?

Similarly, when the public sector reforms go private, and all CUK users are deemed inside IR35, there will be no sympathy.

stop your bulltulip donkeyrhubarb. Getting paid in loans and paying no tax on half a million quid of earnings is not legal avoidance, it’s plain evasion. The law has caught up with you and now you want a judge to believe that your human rights are being violated. Nonsense. Public sector reforms can go private, I have no issues with that. I won’t try and find a scheme to avoid it.

[GreenMirror]

Can I have two? That way it's stereo.
I can imagine the sympathetic response from the general public. I have to imagine it, because it won't exist in reality.

Which is why LCAG are going to the courts?

Similarly, when the public sector reforms go private, and all CUK users are deemed inside IR35, there will be no sympathy.

[shaunbhoy]

Following the successful case against the now liquidated and, consequently now defunct Scottish football club Rangers last year, the Government introduced a new law and HM Revenue & Customs has deemed any outstanding loans liable for tax.

ftfy

Important to get all the facts out there.

[NotAllThere]

Oude Joris Dutch Antilles Trading Corporation can loan you the world's tiniest violin, with a valuation in a fast depreciating foreign currency.

Can I have two? That way it's stereo.

HMRC 'breached human rights' in tax avoidance crackdown, campaigners claim

A group of contractors who used tax avoidance schemes have branded looming fines “grossly unfair” and a breach of human rights in an official legal challenge.

The tax office has targeted around 50,000 self-employed people with a “loan charge”, set to hit in April, which those liable claim will see them forced into bankruptcy.

The dispute arises from the contractors’ use of complex arrangements, popular and widely accepted to be legal in the early 2000s, in which much of their salary was paid in the form of supposedly tax-free loans.

The Loan Charge Action Group claims workers were unwittingly led into the schemes by unscrupulous promoters or employers, who required them to be paid in this way.

Following the successful case against Scottish football club Rangers last year, the Government introduced a new law and HM Revenue & Customs has deemed any outstanding loans liable for tax.

The contractors will also be hit by the loan charge, which rolls all the loans received into a single tax year meaning the bill could be more than the actual tax liability. It also does not clear the original unpaid tax bill.

The LCAG is requesting a judicial review of the charge saying it is a breach of the European Convention of Human Rights and that the Government did not carry out proper impact assessments. HMRC has admitted that a small number of people may face bankruptcy.

Robert Venables QC, acting on behalf of the group, said the loan charge was “disproportionate”.

He added: "The loan charges are being applied in cases where there was no tax avoidance in the first place and taxpayers are being taxed on non-existent benefits and non-existent income.

“This is to all intents and purposes retrospective legislation. It is grossly unfair, arbitrary, oppressive and unjust”

More from source: HMRC 'breached human rights' in tax avoidance crackdown, campaigners claim

I can imagine the sympathetic response from the general public. I have to imagine it, because it won't exist in reality.