Reply to: The BN66 thread has broken a record!

[Incognito]

Getting back to the original topic of this thread...

If you thought the site was busy while the JR was taking place, just wait until the judgement is handed down.

The judgement usually only takes 30 minutes or so, and there will be hundreds of people madly pressing F5 on the BN66 thread to learn the outcome.

I agree with you on that matter 100%. No matter my opinion, I am interested in the case.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Judgement day

Getting back to the original topic of this thread...

If you thought the site was busy while the JR was taking place, just wait until the judgement is handed down.

The judgement usually only takes 30 minutes or so, and there will be hundreds of people madly pressing F5 on the BN66 thread to learn the outcome.

[Incognito]

Wow, you've got an ego the size of your avatar!

I have no intention of arguing with someone who is clearly disinterested in listening to anyone else's point of view.

Quite how you equate my post to the size of my ego baffles me. You've also disregarded the fact where I've stated that DR puts his argument across well even though I disagree with it. However, just so you’re clear, your opinion doesn’t matter to me in the slightest.

I didn't start this thread either. Whilst I wholeheartedly disagree with the way you managed your tax affairs with this scheme, I felt it none of my business to get involved with your discussions on any of the BN66 threads. This was brought up in general though and I feel it is an open thread for anyone to post how they regard this case and its impact on contractors.

And I respect your right to disagree.

What are your views on the Arctic S660 case? This wasn't retrospective legislation but it was an attempt by HMRC to twist an arcane piece of legislation to levy a retrospective tax.

Dragonfly may set a precedent but it doesn't really help HMRC that much because they still need to investigate each contractor on a case by case basis. The cost of pursuing individual cases doesn't make it attractive, other than to scare other people and spread FUD. HMRC will also be aware that many people have insurance and are unlikely to bow to pressure.

As you rightly point out, retrospective tax legislation is nothing new and it doesn't in itself breach article 1 protocol 1 of ECHR. However, it has to be proportionate and the people affected by BN66 are hoping that the Judge will find it isn't in this case.

Perhaps this post might win you round a bit:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1054165

I disagree with your interpretation of Arctic. HMRC actually won part of their argument that the arrangement did come under S.660, however, as Mrs Jones shares were seen to be a gift then she was exempt. It’s quite safe to say that that situation will be getting changed in some future finance bill. Would it be retrospectively applied? I’d say it can’t be as you’ve already had a House of Lords ruling regarding the argument.

I can’t really comment on the note. I’m not party as to what weight an advice note will carry. It may strengthen your argument that some part of HMRC were aware of the system, but the fact that this is now at the courts proves that it’s quite a complicated matter that needed looked at in-depth and by specialist parties. How anyone could believe ‘tax isn’t taxing’ amazes me.

I’ve already stated I’d rather not see anyone pursued over this; I take no satisfaction in strangers being bankrupted over money that is unrelated to me. However I do not support your case.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Whilst I disagree with a lot of what DR says, I respect the man for the strength of his argument he puts across. You on the other hand are one of the scaremongers that have been discussed in this thread. You will win no friends with an attitude like that.

HMRC do not need to clarify IR35. They have enough of a case after Dragonfly to catch out their intended target, the disguised employee. I have enough faith in my affairs to believe that I do not come under Dragonfly; however I have worked with plenty of people who don't have the slightest clue. For them, it is just a matter of time before they get the letter through the door.

And as for the poster who states this case will create a precedent, retrospective tax legislation has been part of our system for decades.

And I respect your right to disagree.

What are your views on the Arctic S660 case? This wasn't retrospective legislation but it was an attempt by HMRC to twist an arcane piece of legislation to levy a retrospective tax.

Dragonfly may set a precedent but it doesn't really help HMRC that much because they still need to investigate each contractor on a case by case basis. The cost of pursuing individual cases doesn't make it attractive, other than to scare other people and spread FUD. HMRC will also be aware that many people have insurance and are unlikely to bow to pressure.

As you rightly point out, retrospective tax legislation is nothing new and it doesn't in itself breach article 1 protocol 1 of ECHR. However, it has to be proportionate and the people affected by BN66 are hoping that the Judge will find it isn't in this case.

Perhaps this post might win you round a bit:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1054165

[SantaClaus]

Whilst I disagree with a lot of what DR says, I respect the man for the strength of his argument he puts across. You on the other hand are one of the scaremongers that have been discussed in this thread. You will win no friends with an attitude like that.

HMRC do not need to clarify IR35. They have enough of a case after Dragonfly to catch out their intended target, the disguised employee. I have enough faith in my affairs to believe that I do not come under Dragonfly; however I have worked with plenty of people who don't have the slightest clue. For them, it is just a matter of time before they get the letter through the door.

And as for the poster who states this case will create a precedent, retrospective tax legislation has been part of our system for decades.

Wow, you've got an ego the size of your avatar!
I have no intention of arguing with someone who is clearly disinterested in listening to anyone else's point of view.

Good luck with your rather lonely thread.

One last point though on a previous comment you made:

...I run a limited company and I do my hardest to justify the fact that I consider myself a consultancy and not an employee. I have a web presence and I do odd tech stuff at cost to put other clients through my books. ...

Pure window dressing mate. You are just fooling yourself, no-one else.

[Incognito]

Yep, and HMRC have quite clearly stated in court that they weren't happy with our tax avoidance method being a way to get around IR35.

If we lose, you can bet your bottom $ that they will go after IR35 and a whole host of other taxes retrospectively.

Whilst I disagree with a lot of what DR says, I respect the man for the strength of his argument he puts across. You on the other hand are one of the scaremongers that have been discussed in this thread. You will win no friends with an attitude like that.

HMRC do not need to clarify IR35. They have enough of a case after Dragonfly to catch out their intended target, the disguised employee. I have enough faith in my affairs to believe that I do not come under Dragonfly; however I have worked with plenty of people who don't have the slightest clue. For them, it is just a matter of time before they get the letter through the door.

And as for the poster who states this case will create a precedent, retrospective tax legislation has been part of our system for decades.

[SantaClaus]

As I said in my previous post, I didn't appreciate the scaremongering tactics employed, but these kind of referred to HMRC just changing tax rates / allowances at a whim.

However, this does put it more succiently. IR35 was all about ensuring that those effectively working as employees are taxed as such. A modification to this law to tighten the definition around disguised employment and backdate it to the start of IR35 isn't outside the realms of possibility.

Yep, and HMRC have quite clearly stated in court that they weren't happy with our tax avoidance method being a way to get around IR35.

If we lose, you can bet your bottom $ that they will go after IR35 and a whole host of other taxes retrospectively.

[TykeMerc]

If BN66 does set a precedent then it is more likely to be used to pick off small groups of people who have no voice.

Not forgetting that legal precedent is incredibly strong in legal arguments. If they win this one and the principle of retrospection is effectively approved then it opens many potential flood gates.

However, what I am hoping the Court's ruling will show is that HMRC have got far too big for their boots and have put themselves above the law, and this should be a worry to all of us who are potentially at their mercy.

This is also a critical point and must not be played down, HMG and their employees must get a dose of realism and understand that they serve the country and not the other way round.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

As I said in my previous post, I didn't appreciate the scaremongering tactics employed, but these kind of referred to HMRC just changing tax rates / allowances at a whim.

However, this does put it more succiently. IR35 was all about ensuring that those effectively working as employees are taxed as such. A modification to this law to tighten the definition around disguised employment and backdate it to the start of IR35 isn't outside the realms of possibility.

Let me say, I can't see them ever retrospectively clarifying IR35 and you are right to talk about scaremongering. There are too many people involved, and pressure groups like the PCG, for them to ever try this.

Although, having said that, they did try it on with the S660 Arctic case.

If BN66 does set a precedent then it is more likely to be used to pick off small groups of people who have no voice.

However, what I am hoping the Court's ruling will show is that HMRC have got far too big for their boots and have put themselves above the law, and this should be a worry to all of us who are potentially at their mercy.

[centurian]

How would you feel if Parliament retrospectively clarified IR35 so it achieved what Parliament had always clearly intended the law to do?

As I said in my previous post, I didn't appreciate the scaremongering tactics employed, but these kind of referred to HMRC just changing tax rates / allowances at a whim.

However, this does put it more succiently. IR35 was all about ensuring that those effectively working as employees are taxed as such. A modification to this law to tighten the definition around disguised employment and backdate it to the start of IR35 isn't outside the realms of possibility.

[AtW]

This thread is way too serious for CUK General chaps, you are better off moving to Accounting or something, otherwise some of the Trolls Living in General would say something wrong that they may regret later.

P.S. I have no clue what BN66 is, only use straightforward PAYE, never even paid dividends as SKA wasn't particularly successful commercially until recently.

[centurian]

My initial view was a lack of sympathy for the BN66 crowd. What annoyed me most was the scaremongering tactics to get everyone on board - how HMRC would then just retrospectively change anything whenever they felt like it.

But for me, the tipping point was MP's expenses when a queue of MP's lined up (including many who had voted for BN66) and recited "but it was in the rules at the time" and more recently "but you can't retrospectively change the rules on our expenses".

I am now of the view that BN66 is tax avoidance, but dances very closely to the thin line that separates avoidance from evasion.

However those participating in the scheme and are now facing "financial ruin" really should have invested the tax savings until they were sure it was safe (generally 6 years). This was always a risky endeavour from the start.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Tax Evasion

I would just like to clarify something.

Some people on this thread have described the BN66 scheme as tax evasion. Evasion is where you fail to declare sources of income. All incomes from the BN66 scheme were fully declared on tax returns. HMRC have never once suggested that this was tax evasion, and this is why they are only imposing interest charges and not penalties.

Incidentally, HMRC's barrister in the JR mentioned IR35 on a couple of occasions, and referred to it as anti-avoidance legislation. I have also seen written testimony from HMRC where they describe the BN66 scheme as just one of a number of devices employed by contractors since 2000 to circumvent IR35.

How many of you out there are using one of these devices (loopholes)?

How would you feel if Parliament retrospectively clarified IR35 so it achieved what Parliament had always clearly intended the law to do?

[threaded]

That is where I think that HMRC are behaving in an unacceptable manner.

If the MontP scheme fell outside of the law at the time then HMRC should have challenged it using that law. They couldn't which is what tells me the MontP scheme was probably legal.

I have no problems with the government changing the law to close the scheme down but to claim that that closure applies retrospectively leaves us all subject to the whim of the government and not the certainty of law.

I don't want to live in a country like that.

Neither did I, so I moved.

Seriously, if you couldn't see this sort of nonsense was on the cards as soon as the New Lie were first elected, then I'm sorry for you.

[sweetandsour]

The MontP schemes etc thought they'd found a way that gets round this. HMRC say they haven't. That's the issue.

That is where I think that HMRC are behaving in an unacceptable manner.

If the MontP scheme fell outside of the law at the time then HMRC should have challenged it using that law. They couldn't which is what tells me the MontP scheme was probably legal.

I have no problems with the government changing the law to close the scheme down but to claim that that closure applies retrospectively leaves us all subject to the whim of the government and not the certainty of law.

I don't want to live in a country like that.