Reply to: BN66/S58 update

[AtW]

I wont be surprised if there are skeletons in your cupboard.

So you think he is a necromancer?!??!

As long as he pays his taxes it's fine by me

[fullyautomatix]

I never said I support BN66ers. I know you love putting words in peoples' mouths but this is untrue - I merely support retrospective legislation even less, especially after such periods of time.

Nope you love the BN66 crew to the point where it is now very cringy. For someone who believes in God and pays his fair share of tax I wonder why you adopt such an aggressive stance of supporting them I wonder. I wont be surprised if there are skeletons in your cupboard.

[AtW]

Actually the 3.5% isn't legal. Didn't you hear about the change in law?

Yes, it's entirely legal to pay 3.5% income tax in UK but only if you get just over your allowance

[Old Greg]

Maybe legal, definately immoral - just like the act of paying 3.5% income tax.

Actually the 3.5% isn't legal. Didn't you hear about the change in law?

[AtW]

So if the lobbyers get their way, reversing the decision will also be legal and you'll have nothing to complain about.

Maybe legal, definately immoral - just like the act of paying 3.5% income tax.

[Old Greg]

I never said I support BN66ers. I know you love putting words in peoples' mouths but this is untrue - I merely support retrospective legislation even less, especially after such periods of time.

What rot. If it's such a big deal they could have easily prioritised it. They do have computers in HMRC and it would hardly be difficult to guess who to look at.

So if the lobbyers get their way, reversing the decision will also be legal and you'll have nothing to complain about.

I will have no complaint about the legality of repealing the legislation. However, I would view the repeal as bad legislation

[Old Greg]

Timely response is a reasonable expectation from the above.

Is that what the QC opinion said?

[d000hg]

The BN66 crew and the muppets who support them like Dh00g and NotAllThere and Cojak etc keep arguing that this sets a precedent which means the govt will keep changing laws retrospectively, which is simply bollox

I never said I support BN66ers. I know you love putting words in peoples' mouths but this is untrue - I merely support retrospective legislation even less, especially after such periods of time.

HMRC are not waiting watching real time data and wanting to chase criminals who committed a crime in real time. They have limited resources and will come after you when they can.

What rot. If it's such a big deal they could have easily prioritised it. They do have computers in HMRC and it would hardly be difficult to guess who to look at.

The courts said it was legal for Govt to use this particular element of retrospection.

So the law has spoken - what the Govt did was legal.

Some could argue that it was immoral for Govt to do it, but it's legal.

Why should the Govt cave in after it won the legal challenge?

So if the lobbyers get their way, reversing the decision will also be legal and you'll have nothing to complain about.

[AtW]

you missed the Cretin bit.

You were smart enough not to get into that tulip

[vetran]

you missed the Cretin bit.

[AtW]

They enquired or corrected any form based on EBT usage? NO so they effectively approved them.

Timely response is a reasonable expectation from the above. No Matter what the Judge said.

[fullyautomatix]

They enquired or corrected any form based on EBT usage? NO so they effectively approved them.

Timely response is a reasonable expectation from the above. No Matter what the Judge said.

So someone submitted to HMRC that instead of 40% tax on their 150K income they will pay 3.5% and HMRC approved it?

[vetran]

The judge addressed this point in judgement - basically lack of timely response from HMRC gives no right to fook over the taxpayer.

I am sure HMRC did not deal with this before because usage of scheme too low to warrant attention - based on number of people who got into it this scheme was stopped pretty early compared to other schemes that got more popular (EBT?).



Pardon my ignorance, but when exactly HMRC signs off accounts? It receives submissions and can acknowledge receipt of those.

What*happens*next? When*you*submit*your*online*return*to*HMRC*you*wil l*receive*an*acknowledgment*of
receipt.*The*acknowledgment*does*not*mean*that*HMR C*has*agreed*the*figures*in*the
return.*HMRC*can*amend*the*return*to*correct*obvio us*errors*or*omissions*or*anything*else
that*they*have*reason*to*believe*is*incorrect*in*t he*light*of*information*available*to*them.
HMRC*can*also*enquire*into*the*return.
Once*you*have*delivered*a*Company*Tax*Return*you*c an,*subject*to*certain*time*limits,
amend*the*return.

They enquired or corrected any form based on EBT usage? NO so they effectively approved them.

Timely response is a reasonable expectation from the above. No Matter what the Judge said.

[AtW]

If it was so obvious then HMRC should have shut down the system 10 years ago.

The judge addressed this point in judgement - basically lack of timely response from HMRC gives no right to fook over the taxpayer.

I am sure HMRC did not deal with this before because usage of scheme too low to warrant attention - based on number of people who got into it this scheme was stopped pretty early compared to other schemes that got more popular (EBT?).

They didn't, they signed off on years of the companies investing in these schemes I don't recall them returning Company Tax returns every year because the contractor had used an EBT, they can't go back and say yes we meant that ten years ago but we signed off on your accounts anyway.

Pardon my ignorance, but when exactly HMRC signs off accounts? It receives submissions and can acknowledge receipt of those.

[proggy]

If it was so obvious then HMRC should have shut down the system 10 years ago. They didn't, they signed off on years of the companies investing in these schemes I don't recall them returning Company Tax returns every year because the contractor had used an EBT, they can't go back and say yes we meant that ten years ago but we signed off on your accounts anyway.

This isn't someone squirrelling away cash & Diamonds in Switzerland or taking cash in hand it was reported every year.

The Schemes fell into 'who dares wins - Rodders' we were all sure of that.

So does Starbucks tax Avoidance. Now has HMRC got the balls to go after them or Vodafone ? No it hasn't.

Stop it going forward, yes of course.

Demand penalties for something that was legal then? No of course not.

My thoughts exactly.