No interest
Obviously the majority of the 40,000 claimed by HMRC either do not visit this little thread and/or have no interest in helping themselves.
We (Big Group) will consider how to spread the word in other ways to try and get this legal fighting fund together.
Can I ask an administrator to close this thread please.
- 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!
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 "Legal challenges on past, present and future tax issues"
Collapse
-
We have full agreement.
If I was going to challenge HMRC on schemes, yours is the solution I would go for.
Unbelievably some people are still using schemes! Despite APNs. So there might be a steady stream of people who only do research after its all gone wrong.
Leave a comment:
-
All of the points above are valid.
If the equation was to pay £5k each with a low chance of success, then the obvious answer is don't do it.
If the equation is pay £150 each then even a low chance of success might be worth the punt.
This is a hugely subjective decision.
I also take the point about the original post having a number of potential targets. The point of the committee is to reduce those to a smaller number and to limit the objectives and/or assign priorities.
We did not recommend JR's against the APN regime on the grounds that success was unlikely. Hopefully I'll be eating my words come July, but my money is on the Government on that one.
The big difference we have with the 2019 charge is that this is unabashed retrospective law. (APN was current law with retrospective effect). We know that a modest group of MPs we brief have reservations on a 20 year rule.
That group also has concerns over the opening of closed years.
However words are cheap and when push comes to shove, how much of that support melts away will be a depressing but interesting read.
I would personally put the chance of achieving any mitigation of that 2019 charge in the 25% range. If there is a small majority for one party or another, perhaps a but more. If there is a clear majority for one side over the other, a lower chance.
The reason for the post however is that action is needed NOW.
The promoters and their core of users to form a group, have largely gone.
Advisers tend to be insular and (correctly) look after their own clients.
To a degree I'm doing that as well, but can see the greater advantage as well.
Given however relatively few views in the last day, I have no great hope that this effort will go to nought, perhaps for the reasons above and perhaps because the fight is leaving the people here and perhaps because most are focused on paying the tax and have no spare resource.
Leave a comment:
-
I agree with Webberg. I'd be happy to contribute to a challenge as I personally think what HMRC are doing is so unfair and heavy handed.
Also I don't expect anything for free, and I think Webberg is right and as long as he is upfront and HONEST , then he is entitled to make his living ... In my personal experience he has been very supportive in helping and answering my questions via private PM.
What I would say though is that before embarking on a challenge is realistically what are the chances of a positive outcome? I understand it's hard to say , but maybe the experts have some sort of idea on this. As I see it for me, I earthier settle on a reduced liability or wait till 2019 and having to pay more ... or challenge!! If challenging then what are the thoughts about having to pay in 2019 or is that put on hold until the change has concluded.
I'd be up for challenging.
Originally posted by webberg View PostNot sure what that post means?
Are you suggesting that I/we have no skin in the game and are simply looking to make fees from process?
That might be a reasonable position but a few economics.
Let's assume that 1,000 joined and agreed to pay £500 each. Obviously gross funds controlled by committee = £500,000.
That would be enough for a claim to be prepared and laid before a Court.
That needs a law firm (to be appointed by a committee) and not a tax firm. As I mentioned, I am not a lawyer and do not work in a law firm.
I accept that as a tax firm we are as better versed in contactor tax than many but by no means all other firms. we would be quite happy to submit our credentials to the committee for a piece of work required. The legal/tax split here though is perhaps 9/1.
So what's in it for us?
A strong legal challenge helps all contractors. And that included BG members.
We have seen other challenges run of steam and funds part way though the process and that leads to either abandonment of the challenge or a disproportionately small number of people picking up the tab. We want to avoid that.
HMRC claims that 40,000 people are caught in the 2019 charge.
Even if the numbers are half of that and only 25% of those contribute say £100, we have a decent fund.
Leave a comment:
-
When things go wrong it can be incredibly difficult to admit you made a mistake. There is a temptation to chase losses - its something even traders are very prone to.
Some people are starting to hate politicians and lawyers as much as they hate HMRC.
HMRC have limitless funds. Any challenge will go to FTTT, UTTT, Court of appeal, SupremeCourt. To get between each step you have to appeal to go to the next step. Then there are JRs. And HMRC might be awarded costs.
Realistically you need a minimum of a million. You may get a good fighting fund. What happens when that runs out?
Things may go well. Or people may end up losing extra money and extra years of their life when things could have been put behind them.
Either way the lawyers win.
Let the buyer beware.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by webberg View Postgross funds controlled by committee = £500,000.
That would be enough for a claim to be prepared and laid before a Court.
Your original post lists five different points. Four of those are likely to need to go through the judicial review process, with the other being an FTT thing. So that says that the costs may be substantially higher if you get to the full review stage and do the FTT.
There is then a question of what chance you have of winning? I'm not going to comment on the settlement proposals / collection practices as that is not my area. But I think that the chances of winning on the 2019 loan charge is zero. Nowhere near 1%. And if you win in the high court, the government will take it much further, so look to raise even more money, and even more money. The disguised remuneration changes are pencilled to raise well over £2bn in the next few years. The government just can't afford to lose that. And even if they did lose at any stage, I'd bet that any legislation will be tweaked to make sure that it achieves its aims.
So my personal view (and I don't work for HMRC and I don't advise contractors) is that is people want to spend the money then they should be comfortable knowing that the only people who will win are the advisers.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by PokemonStay View Post
Are you suggesting that I/we have no skin in the game and are simply looking to make fees from process?
That might be a reasonable position but a few economics.
Let's assume that 1,000 joined and agreed to pay £500 each. Obviously gross funds controlled by committee = £500,000.
That would be enough for a claim to be prepared and laid before a Court.
That needs a law firm (to be appointed by a committee) and not a tax firm. As I mentioned, I am not a lawyer and do not work in a law firm.
I accept that as a tax firm we are as better versed in contactor tax than many but by no means all other firms. we would be quite happy to submit our credentials to the committee for a piece of work required. The legal/tax split here though is perhaps 9/1.
So what's in it for us?
A strong legal challenge helps all contractors. And that included BG members.
We have seen other challenges run of steam and funds part way though the process and that leads to either abandonment of the challenge or a disproportionately small number of people picking up the tab. We want to avoid that.
HMRC claims that 40,000 people are caught in the 2019 charge.
Even if the numbers are half of that and only 25% of those contribute say £100, we have a decent fund.
Leave a comment:
-
Committee
I would certainly be willing to serve on a committee, or in deed any other capacity that would be of use.
Leave a comment:
-
Perhaps you could also indicate if you would be willing to serve on a committee please?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by webberg View Post[*]2019 charge including closed years[*]2019 charge applying to non resident people
Leave a comment:
-
get involved
I would be happy to give time to this, in whatever capacity I could give benefit.
Leave a comment:
-
Legal challenges on past, present and future tax issues
First - there will be some of you who see this as touting for business. If the proposal below comes to fruition and if me or my firm is engaged to help, then I/we will benefit. If that happens, we will be on commercial terms based on existing hourly rates. If this is a reason why you would not consider the below, so be it - you have been warned.
The present tax situation for contractors has a number of areas which may be susceptible for a legal challenge. These include:
- 2019 charge including closed years
- 2019 charge applying to non resident people
- unfairness in application of settlement proposals
- unfairness in collection practices
- whether COP8/discovery is valid and therefore years are open/closed
We all know that arguing these points with HMRC will be a slow and expensive process and HMRC is adept at playing the game of wearing out your funds and enthusiasm long before you get to any reasonably sensible conclusion. This is especially the case where individuals are going it alone.
Our (WTT) opinion is that certainly the first two matters above can only be effectively challenged in a mass action that is funded and ready to go as early as possible.
That action should look to start as soon as we see the legislation which I'm guessing will be when the next Budget happens. That might be late June/early July if the new crop of MP's get their act together or perhaps they will wait until the planned Autumn Budget. Let's hope for the latter.
We (WTT) are not a law firm. We cannot therefore undertake the work necessary to prepare, present and prosecute a legal challenge. We have our favourites to do this work, but there are many law firms out there and some form of beauty parade is sensible.
We (WTT) would however be prepared to assist in bringing together a group and providing assistance where we can. We see this as being a ringfenced part of our Big Group forum to begin with. Hopefully however it will grow quickly and given that most of you here are IT specialists, I would hope that hosting and administrating the group would swiftly move off our forum (and cost base).
We see ourselves as offering help in how to constitute and administer the group and provide advice and experience. It may be that the group also wishes to use us (WTT) for tax advice, but again, there are lots of other tax firms out there.
The group would need two things immediately.
The first is a committee. This is perhaps a pathfinder group who can agree a constitution and aims and control the funds and processes such as the beauty parades. We see this as something to be done in the next 4 to 6 weeks.
The second is funds. We (WTT) are not authorised to hold client funds and have no wish to do so. The above committee therefore needs a bank account and signing powers etc. This is because, in our opinion, trying to launch a legal action without funds and holding out the collecting tin only at the point the lawyers need paying, is doomed to fail. The difference between those shouting about unfairness and those prepared to back it with money is wide.
So we see a real need to get ORGANISED.
Organised QUICKLY.
Ready to go this Autumn at the latest.
We are prepared to help get this off the ground and rolling.
We are prepared to recommend to Big Group members the benefits of joining.
We are prepared to be involved/not involved as the committee above decides.
Who's in?Tags: 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
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: