Good evening tax fans

[CockneyRed]

This is something which may need to be taken all the way, to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

Hopefully someone has the grit and determination to do this.

I think money would be more of a requirement, obviously needed to fight these things .... hang on.. WTT/BG have been collecting for quite a few years now!

Hmmm.... An armoury, ready for a war but just where the hell did they put it?? Damn.

[DealorNoDeal]

I personally suspect that IF the Hoey case reaches UTT then the s684 point will be reversed and Hoey will win that area.

This is something which may need to be taken all the way, to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

Hopefully someone has the grit and determination to do this.

[yeahitsphil]

Thanks. The problem is, how to stop them. So far, the courts don't seem inclined to rein them in.

I personally suspect that IF the Hoey case reaches UTT then the s684 point will be reversed and Hoey will win that area. I appreciate that their application to have a JR on such failed but that's somewhat separate to the (potential) UTT case - a JR is about the policy itself rather than its use/application, but saleos will be MUCH better placed to comment on the case than myself so I shall not pretend otherwise and leave it to them.

I assume being away from Judge Andrews will be helpful on that as well.....she just seems erm...less than keen to assist LC victims in general with her recent JR decisions that seem to some to be suspiciously well prepared/made at the speed of light. Almost like decisions had been made in advance of actual hearing some people may say. Not me of course.

[DealorNoDeal]

Hi

I don't know enough info on the quoted case to be able to say with certainty why HMRC may be acting in such a manner. I would say though that its somewhat unlikely HMRC are turning a blind eye to fraud as the OP suggests. Nor do I see any info which indicates it is anything which meets the definition of fraud.

With regards HMRC and PAYE in general....they certainly CLAIM to have absolute power of discretion! Indeed that's part of the Hoey case which I believe may head to UTT idc (though don't quote me on that as its not my case and I cant speak on behalf of Hoey or their advisors so ive no idea if it definitely is being appealed)
The point in question is HMRC claiming a s684 discretion to transfer liability as they wish....which quite frankly is ridiculous as it would mean numerous regulations, such as reg 81, are and always have been completely pointless.

As a side note HMRC always have a discretion under ESC19 not to collect tax from any case if they so wish.

Thanks. The problem is, how to stop them. So far, the courts don't seem inclined to rein them in.

[yeahitsphil]

Evening Phil,

So, you think HMRC's discretion to "turn off" PAYE is pretty much absolute?

There was an example given in the following post which, on the face of it, seemed like it might be harder for them to justify because the scheme had a UK "front company".

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2765807

Cheers,

Hi

I don't know enough info on the quoted case to be able to say with certainty why HMRC may be acting in such a manner. I would say though that its somewhat unlikely HMRC are turning a blind eye to fraud as the OP suggests. Nor do I see any info which indicates it is anything which meets the definition of fraud.

With regards HMRC and PAYE in general....they certainly CLAIM to have absolute power of discretion! Indeed that's part of the Hoey case which I believe may head to UTT idc (though don't quote me on that as its not my case and I cant speak on behalf of Hoey or their advisors so ive no idea if it definitely is being appealed)
The point in question is HMRC claiming a s684 discretion to transfer liability as they wish....which quite frankly is ridiculous as it would mean numerous regulations, such as reg 81, are and always have been completely pointless.

As a side note HMRC always have a discretion under ESC19 not to collect tax from any case if they so wish.

[DealorNoDeal]

Evening Phil,

So, you think HMRC's discretion to "turn off" PAYE is pretty much absolute?

There was an example given in the following post which, on the face of it, seemed like it might be harder for them to justify because the scheme had a UK "front company".

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2765807

Cheers,

[yeahitsphil]

Thanks for sharing your views on other groups ‘solutions’. If I understand correctly, and the retrospective aspect of the LC is removed by amendment, we still have the problem of open years. Does anyone have a ‘solution’ to this that you do agree with Phil?

Hi,

What we have to remember is two fold:
1/The loan charge is already law.
2/Further its already happened.

As despicable and disgraceful as it is we cant remove those facts.
I happen to know that HMRC view this forum and indeed have an email from my old direct boss stating such (Hi Paul Rooney, genuinely hope you're ok mate but you will lose this battle) so it would be slightly ridic for me to say on here what best option is (as it doesn't involve litigation in which case it would be fine as, like others have mentioned earlier, there's nothing 'savvy' about hiding a litigation plan since the law states the other side have to have it in advance anyway)
What I will say, and i'm certainly not promising anything here but neither am I charging anyone for such so I have zero motivation or desire to lie.....is that, the APPG and others are, as far as i'm aware, v much aware of the issues faced and are v much working v hard on solving. That being said, clearly i'm not the appg, nor can I speak for them whatsoever. I guess what im saying to an extent is that No, there is no magical solution to open years but at the same time id say that there are people who I consider to be good people who are working v hard to achieve a result which helps all.
Crikey that sounds ridiculously cryptic for which I apologise. Just trying to say, people who aren't me are doing all they can to help ALL. Its out of my power and I have no desire to pretend otherwise but I am aware of what's ongoing so let all crack on with a long weekend and enjoy time with families/loved ones. Just ffs don't be paying people for what most certainly wont work as the LC ALREADY HAPPENED and no amount of stupid expensive crap is going to change that. I appreciate that people who have ploughed money into groups/ideas wont want to hear that so perhaps just remember I'm specifically NOT wanting new clients, I need this out of my life. I have therefore zero reason to lie.

Cheers
Phil

[Clairol]

So what now please?

Why hello everyone,

Figured id better sort myself a new profile (lost old log in details) and come online to clarify matters...or at least try to.
So on that basis

I have a number of disagreements with WTT which are well known and not worth repeating as we are all entitled to opinion. However, whilst I am v much in agreement with MH (saleos) on the chances of BG I feel, considering a few things ive seen in this forum, its worth stating the following:

- No WTT are most definitely NOT working undercover with HMRC. Jesus Christ! If they were then they would be the greatest bloody double agents of all time! But they aren't. zero chance of it. Nil, zilch.

- I speak to Matt H on a very regular basis and whilst I know that on here there are a lot of people who are often keen to attack him (he makes me seem relatively popular and that's some going!) I can say that, in my opinion for what its worth, he's about as technically superb on tax matters as anyone i've ever met in my 20 years of working in tax.

- I speak to Rhys (WTT) on a relatively regular basis and despite differences on thoughts of BG that's a matter we accept there's no point in us arguing and indeed just leave aside from discussions. I've found Rhys to be a nice and open chap and indeed just this week worked with him via email on a more important matter. The reason for this is of course the common goal (which we ALL have) of getting rid of the damn Loan charge one way or the other.

So, to cover points I see have come up this week and somewhat weirdly (despite me not even logging into this site for over a year) seem to have mentioned my name:

- Do I think BG will work? No, I agree with Matt in this for numerous reasons. If I thought it would work id bloody well back it I promise, but personally I think the chances are not even 6.5% let alone the 65% offered. In fact I personally think there's a VERY real chance it will make matters worse due to penalties.

- Do I think LCAG ffc Hamilton Rose disclosure plan will work? Nup that's amazingly even less likely to work that BG and i've absolutely told LCAG ffc this. I mean ffs, are we really thinking that after years of torture that all what is needed are a few words in the white space of a return and suddenly no tax is due? and don't worry " Its QC approved" . Seriously people, think about that one. Pretty certain you've heard such promises before....from the same QCs as it happens. Just don't bloody do it, and if you do and when the unicorn fails to produce its golden egg, don't say you were not warned.

- Do I think there's any hope at all? Absolutely, in fact i'm confident it will be ok wrt removing retrospection. Its out of my/your/our hands now though and I cant expand but lets trust the few MPs and the APPG in general as I know they are working v hard in the background on doing what they do.
Also i'd add that despite me thinking that the disclosure plan is about as awful as BG is this is completely separate to LCAG as an organisation who without we wouldn't today have any hope at all. In my discussion with Rhys/appg and others this week LCAG were v much included and I thank them for their excellent work as always. Just because I strongly disagree with a certain policy/decision does NOT make an entire organisation bad. Indeed the disclosure plan is actually separate to LCAG themselves.

Now i'm off to go do my day job for a few hours more but I shall return later and look forward to returning to see the standard name calling/crazy allegations/david byers articles (hi dave *waves in cheerful manner) that i'm used to from the internet.
Any questions, feel free to ask and ill answer any sensible ones.
Actually Ill answer one now.....no I am not bloody bobby dazzler and I thank the mods for seemingly having investigated that and confirming earlier. I do however know who it was but its not for me to speak for someone else and nor can I control what another grown adult says. I do agree with most of the points that he made though.

Anyhoo, Jim Harra wont tell himself to **** *** and leave my clients alone so gotta dash.

Cheerio
Phil

Thanks for sharing your views on other groups ‘solutions’. If I understand correctly, and the retrospective aspect of the LC is removed by amendment, we still have the problem of open years. Does anyone have a ‘solution’ to this that you do agree with Phil?

[yeahitsphil]

Why hello everyone,

Figured id better sort myself a new profile (lost old log in details) and come online to clarify matters...or at least try to.
So on that basis

I have a number of disagreements with WTT which are well known and not worth repeating as we are all entitled to opinion. However, whilst I am v much in agreement with MH (saleos) on the chances of BG I feel, considering a few things ive seen in this forum, its worth stating the following:

- No WTT are most definitely NOT working undercover with HMRC. Jesus Christ! If they were then they would be the greatest bloody double agents of all time! But they aren't. zero chance of it. Nil, zilch.

- I speak to Matt H on a very regular basis and whilst I know that on here there are a lot of people who are often keen to attack him (he makes me seem relatively popular and that's some going!) I can say that, in my opinion for what its worth, he's about as technically superb on tax matters as anyone i've ever met in my 20 years of working in tax.

- I speak to Rhys (WTT) on a relatively regular basis and despite differences on thoughts of BG that's a matter we accept there's no point in us arguing and indeed just leave aside from discussions. I've found Rhys to be a nice and open chap and indeed just this week worked with him via email on a more important matter. The reason for this is of course the common goal (which we ALL have) of getting rid of the damn Loan charge one way or the other.

So, to cover points I see have come up this week and somewhat weirdly (despite me not even logging into this site for over a year) seem to have mentioned my name:

- Do I think BG will work? No, I agree with Matt in this for numerous reasons. If I thought it would work id bloody well back it I promise, but personally I think the chances are not even 6.5% let alone the 65% offered. In fact I personally think there's a VERY real chance it will make matters worse due to penalties.

- Do I think LCAG ffc Hamilton Rose disclosure plan will work? Nup that's amazingly even less likely to work that BG and i've absolutely told LCAG ffc this. I mean ffs, are we really thinking that after years of torture that all what is needed are a few words in the white space of a return and suddenly no tax is due? and don't worry " Its QC approved" . Seriously people, think about that one. Pretty certain you've heard such promises before....from the same QCs as it happens. Just don't bloody do it, and if you do and when the unicorn fails to produce its golden egg, don't say you were not warned.

- Do I think there's any hope at all? Absolutely, in fact i'm confident it will be ok wrt removing retrospection. Its out of my/your/our hands now though and I cant expand but lets trust the few MPs and the APPG in general as I know they are working v hard in the background on doing what they do.
Also i'd add that despite me thinking that the disclosure plan is about as awful as BG is this is completely separate to LCAG as an organisation who without we wouldn't today have any hope at all. In my discussion with Rhys/appg and others this week LCAG were v much included and I thank them for their excellent work as always. Just because I strongly disagree with a certain policy/decision does NOT make an entire organisation bad. Indeed the disclosure plan is actually separate to LCAG themselves.

Now i'm off to go do my day job for a few hours more but I shall return later and look forward to returning to see the standard name calling/crazy allegations/david byers articles (hi dave *waves in cheerful manner) that i'm used to from the internet.
Any questions, feel free to ask and ill answer any sensible ones.
Actually Ill answer one now.....no I am not bloody bobby dazzler and I thank the mods for seemingly having investigated that and confirming earlier. I do however know who it was but its not for me to speak for someone else and nor can I control what another grown adult says. I do agree with most of the points that he made though.

Anyhoo, Jim Harra wont tell himself to **** *** and leave my clients alone so gotta dash.

Cheerio
Phil