• 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: APN JR defeated

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.

Previously on "APN JR defeated"

Collapse

  • DotasScandal
    replied
    Originally posted by meanttobeworking View Post
    Has someone at the Telegraph got an APN or something?

    HMRC is taking 20pc longer to look into your tax affairs - Telegraph
    Feel free to come comment and/or up upvote.

    Leave a comment:


  • meanttobeworking
    replied
    Has someone at the Telegraph got an APN or something?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...x-affairs.html

    Leave a comment:


  • DotasScandal
    replied
    Originally posted by Sausage Surprise View Post
    What would happen, if say you got a demand for £20k back tax and you don't have £20k lying around??
    Bankruptcy, prison, electrodes attached to naught bits??
    See here http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-...nes-house.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Sausage Surprise
    replied
    What would happen, if say you got a demand for £20k back tax and you don't have £20k lying around??
    Bankruptcy, prison, electrodes attached to naught bits??

    Leave a comment:


  • Boobetty
    replied
    Dooley £40k

    The more stories I hear like this one, the nastier I become. Woe betide the HMRC officer who pays me a visit at my home. He'd better bring a couple of friends.

    Leave a comment:


  • Underbase
    replied
    Originally posted by DotasScandal View Post
    Sorta confirms my views that once money's in, it'll never come back.
    Seems the hard and fast 4 year rule in effect here, pity they are flaunting it the other way around.

    Leave a comment:


  • DotasScandal
    replied
    Originally posted by DotasScandal View Post
    Surreal.
    Sorta confirms my views that once money's in, it'll never come back.

    Leave a comment:


  • DotasScandal
    replied
    Originally posted by meanttobeworking View Post
    Another anti-HMRC article from The Telegraph, and another shining example of HMRC's morality, or lack thereof...

    Bomber Command Memorial fundraiser faces loss of home after taxman keeps £40,000 he paid in error - Telegraph
    Surreal.

    Leave a comment:


  • meanttobeworking
    replied
    Another anti-HMRC article from The Telegraph, and another shining example of HMRC's morality, or lack thereof...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/r...-in-error.html

    Leave a comment:


  • centurian
    replied
    Originally posted by DotasScandal View Post
    Article on The Telegraph

    Please contribute to the comments (or at least upvote mine ).

    Looks like readers of the T don't all cheer for "Justice" Simler's judgement
    Yes, I saw that yesterday evening - first time I have seen a journo from a major rag take a view so heavily against HMRC - so much so, that it probably went beyond what many would consider a "balanced" article - she gave HMRC no quarter at all.

    Not that there have been any shortage of biased articles taking HMRCs side - but this is the first one I have seen drop down on the other side of the fence.

    Leave a comment:


  • DotasScandal
    replied
    Article on The Telegraph

    Article on The Telegraph

    Please contribute to the comments (or at least upvote mine ).

    Looks like readers of the T don't all cheer for "Justice" Simler's judgement

    Leave a comment:


  • nickersan
    replied
    Originally posted by StrengthInNumbers View Post
    by the end of 2016 bringing forward £5.5bn in payments for the Exchequer by March 2020

    Propaganda and nothing else. HMRC u r not bringing anything forward. U will have to return this money if u lose. U r doing creative accounts and spinning the PR Wheel.
    The massive miscalculation being the assumption that folks have the £££s to pay...

    Leave a comment:


  • StrengthInNumbers
    replied
    by the end of 2016 bringing forward £5.5bn in payments for the Exchequer by March 2020

    Propaganda and nothing else. HMRC u r not bringing anything forward. U will have to return this money if u lose. U r doing creative accounts and spinning the PR Wheel.

    Leave a comment:


  • DotasScandal
    replied
    Originally posted by Iliketax View Post
    I managed to get hold of an earlier draft of the decision which had the following arguments that did not make the final decision:

    Leave a comment:


  • Iliketax
    replied
    I managed to get hold of an earlier draft of the decision which had the following arguments that did not make the final decision:

    GROUND 6 - PROPORTIONALITY

    155A. Mr Southern QC's very junior counsel argued that each of the claimants' direct male linear ancestors was more substantial than those of the defendant. Counsel relied on the skeleton argument made on the back of the photocopy of Article 6. Mr Eadie for the defendant suggested that this was complete and utter nonsense. I agree with Mr Eadie. To quote Lord Denning MR in A Smith v Jones [1995 BMW 330i] "as many taxpayers have uttered for time immemorial, it is well know that [the defendant] is a complete and utter B....". As result of the defendant's unknown parentage, it cannot be said that the mass of the claimants' male parents are proportionately more massive than those of the defendant.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X