- 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!
Reply to: IR to pay for pointless inspections?
Collapse
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.
Logging in...
Previously on "IR to pay for pointless inspections?"
Collapse
-
Guest repliedAnd here at the international air show we have just finished a very enjoyable display of aerobatic excellence from Pig Airforce!:rolleyes Chocks away Chaps and anyone for bacon.
-
Guest repliedWhat I was trying to get at LB is that without the backing of the PCG and lots of donations the Arctic people would have absolutely no way of affording to "fight" against the IR rulings.Not really a good example. The revenue's view has prevailed at both the commissioners and the high court. As the number of affected companies is large, I would say it is completely the opposite of pointless (from the revenue's point of view, that is).
Hence why I believe it should be the IR who foot the entire bill of any "review" regardless of whether extra tax is raised or not.
Regards
Mailman
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedI think they should tax the poor. How about reversing all the thresholds so the less you earn the higher percentage you pay? Bet we would be the nost productive country in the world in a few years.
Random tax rates would be good too, if you got a zero bill one year and owed £200k the next you would never know if tax dodges were worth bothering with or not.
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedNot really a good example. The revenue's view has prevailed at both the commissioners and the high court. As the number of affected companies is large, I would say it is completely the opposite of pointless (from the revenue's point of view, that is).pointless and baseless actions, like the current Arctic case, from proceeding
Leave a comment:
-
IR to pay for pointless inspections?
Sounds good to me...in fact Id go so far as to say that the IR should be paying for ALL pointless inspections regardless of whether any extra tax revenue is raised or not.
This I think would certainly stop pointless and baseless actions, like the current Arctic case, from proceeding :rollin
But then again...Ive said it once before and Ill say it again...the IR should introduce a flat rate tax system that makes it pointless to avoid paying tax because the savings you make wouldnt be worth the effort you go to avoid paying that tax! I know, Im a true visionary :rollin
MailmanTags: None
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Why contractors keep putting off their pension (and why I'm one of them) Today 02:43
- HMRC loan charge settlement offer: 3 things to check before you sign Yesterday 07:41
- HMRC standstill agreements extended to 72 months: why the term's doubled, and what to check before signing Jul 31 05:53
- Who owns the loans? Inside the mystery of the loan charge recall scandal Jul 30 06:20
- Umbrella company winding-up petitions in 2026: the practical guide for contractors Jul 29 05:29
- Payments on Account deadline: what contractors must do before July 31st — maybe for the final few times Jul 28 08:01
- Andy Burnham's first 100 days: five things contractors need from the new PM Jul 27 00:53
- Starmer vs Burnham on housing: What their rival plans mean for your contractor mortgage Jul 22 00:59
- Burnham's housing vision vs. Starmer's home-buying reforms: what it means for your contractor mortgage Jul 22 00:59
- In Khalil v Innovate Transport, a limited company contractor wasn’t a worker and was on £2.30 — not £230 Jul 21 07:58

Leave a comment: