Reply to: Down

[AtW]

Yellow commie bastard.

More like brown - big time sun here in Corfu

[Churchill]

Yes, but it will be deleted by mods, plus they already know my views, not that they give a **** about anything other than stuff that supports their point of view.

Yellow commie bastard.

[AtW]

Have you got the balls to go over to that thread and tell them all?

Yes, but it will be deleted by mods, plus they already know my views, not that they give a **** about anything other than stuff that supports their point of view.

[Churchill]

I doubt many of them deposited the difference between tax due normally (40%) and tax paid (3.5%) in escrow account just in case their "scheme" does not work.

This BN66 debacle demonstrates how stupid it is to risk so much based on technicality that goes against common sense.

Have you got the balls to go over to that thread and tell them all?

Thought not.

[AtW]

What confuses me is whether they are complaining on moral or legal grounds (or both), or are they just trying not to hand over money that many of them simply do not have.

I doubt many of them deposited the difference between tax due normally (40%) and tax paid (3.5%) in escrow account just in case their "scheme" does not work.

This BN66 debacle demonstrates how stupid it is to risk so much based on technicality that goes against common sense.

Perhaps if those who advise on tax affairs were required to deposit saved tax into escrow for 6 years just in case "scheme" get challenged by HMRC then it would remove a lot of temptation.

[Old Greg]

I get that the BN66 brigade are pissed off - they owe a lot of money, fair enough.

What confuses me is whether they are complaining on moral or legal grounds (or both), or are they just trying not to hand over money that many of them simply do not have.

[Incognito]

Are you out of your mind? It's still illegal to steal - the only thing that such stupid behavior (forgetting to lock door) would probably affect is insurance payout who may refuse to compensate for loss, but the act of theft would nevertheless be criminal act.

The state just got sick of chasing people finding obscure loopholes - the best cause of action is to simplify the tax system to reasonable flat rates without any exceptions, however this is politically impossible even in good, nevertheless when people take the piss and market such schemes publicly then the state has no choice but to crack down on it - those who got affected should be grateful that fines are modest (no jail time).

Sarcasm Alexy, sarcasm.

[AtW]

you may find a house where the owner forgot to lock his back door. In theory, you can go into this house via this back door and help yourself to the goods. This is legal. You are allowed to do that. If you want to stop this you need to close the door.

Are you out of your mind? It's still illegal to steal - the only thing that such stupid behavior (forgetting to lock door) would probably affect is insurance payout who may refuse to compensate for loss, but the act of theft would nevertheless be criminal act.

The state just got sick of chasing people finding obscure loopholes - the best cause of action is to simplify the tax system to reasonable flat rates without any exceptions, however this is politically impossible even in good, nevertheless when people take the piss and market such schemes publicly then the state has no choice but to crack down on it - those who got affected should be grateful that fines are modest (no jail time).

[fullyautomatix]

Exactly. If there's a loophole, close the loophole; but you can't just turn round and say "Hey, that thing you did that was legal? Well now it wasn't, so **** you."

I got it now. I agree with Nick.

Its like this. Its illegal to break in to a house and steal. However, you may find a house where the owner forgot to lock his back door. In theory, you can go into this house via this back door and help yourself to the goods. This is legal. You are allowed to do that. If you want to stop this you need to close the door.

[shaunbhoy]

Nah, that's Davie Moonbeams debt now.

You wish!!!

[Incognito]

Moving on, don't the terms "HMRC", "pound of flesh", and "retrospectively" send a shiver down your spine as a Gers fan?

Nah, that's Davie Moonbeams debt now.

[Incognito]

Exactly. If there's a loophole, close the loophole; but you can't just turn round and say "Hey, that thing you did that was legal? Well now it wasn't, so **** you."

As I've said in this context before, how would people like it if HMRC had legislation passed that said that, no matter what the circumstances of your contracts at the time, you had actually been caught by IR35 all along and owed them accordingly. This is basically what they've done over BN66.

No it ****ing isn't. The existing legislation was passed in 1987 to stop the abuse of the DTA treaty. All this new scheme did was try to exploit that same loophole with a different mechanism. It's all to do with the vehicle that was set up to exploit the DTA treaty. Parliament said you will not exploit the treaty to circumvent paying tax that was due in the UK. Full stop. No if, no but, no maybe.

IR35 states you will not exploit the limited company avenue to avoid paying PAYE/NI. You are inside or outside IR35 due to your personal working circumstances, nothing else. One individual's circumstances does not affect another individual's circumstances as it is a subjective test.

[NickFitz]

The important point is that the retrospective nature of HMRC's attack, no matter how some might feel it is justified, sets a dangerous precedent. For that reason, and that reason alone, it should be resisted.

Exactly. If there's a loophole, close the loophole; but you can't just turn round and say "Hey, that thing you did that was legal? Well now it wasn't, so **** you."

As I've said in this context before, how would people like it if HMRC had legislation passed that said that, no matter what the circumstances of your contracts at the time, you had actually been caught by IR35 all along and owed them accordingly. This is basically what they've done over BN66.

[Churchill]

Moving on, don't the terms "HMRC", "pound of flesh", and "retrospectively" send a shiver down your spine as a Gers fan?

Yep, just the same as the thought of the Dutch kicking the arses of the French. Your turn.

[shaunbhoy]

How is that not the same as what I said? I simply put it across in a more formal construct.



The original 1987 legislation was applied retrospectively, you'd think that would sort of be identified as a precedent. In all of this, the only people who are losing out are the 'small people.' HMRC will still get their pound of flesh and the scheme providers have still got their fees and built their business up over the years off the back of this.

Moving on, don't the terms "HMRC", "pound of flesh", and "retrospectively" send a shiver down your spine as a Gers fan?