Down

[AtW]

you may find a house where the owner forgot to lock his back door. In theory, you can go into this house via this back door and help yourself to the goods. This is legal. You are allowed to do that. If you want to stop this you need to close the door.

Are you out of your mind? It's still illegal to steal - the only thing that such stupid behavior (forgetting to lock door) would probably affect is insurance payout who may refuse to compensate for loss, but the act of theft would nevertheless be criminal act.

The state just got sick of chasing people finding obscure loopholes - the best cause of action is to simplify the tax system to reasonable flat rates without any exceptions, however this is politically impossible even in good, nevertheless when people take the piss and market such schemes publicly then the state has no choice but to crack down on it - those who got affected should be grateful that fines are modest (no jail time).

 

[Incognito]

Are you out of your mind? It's still illegal to steal - the only thing that such stupid behavior (forgetting to lock door) would probably affect is insurance payout who may refuse to compensate for loss, but the act of theft would nevertheless be criminal act.

The state just got sick of chasing people finding obscure loopholes - the best cause of action is to simplify the tax system to reasonable flat rates without any exceptions, however this is politically impossible even in good, nevertheless when people take the piss and market such schemes publicly then the state has no choice but to crack down on it - those who got affected should be grateful that fines are modest (no jail time).

Sarcasm Alexy, sarcasm.

 

[Old Greg]

I get that the BN66 brigade are pissed off - they owe a lot of money, fair enough.

What confuses me is whether they are complaining on moral or legal grounds (or both), or are they just trying not to hand over money that many of them simply do not have.

 

[AtW]

What confuses me is whether they are complaining on moral or legal grounds (or both), or are they just trying not to hand over money that many of them simply do not have.

I doubt many of them deposited the difference between tax due normally (40%) and tax paid (3.5%) in escrow account just in case their "scheme" does not work.

This BN66 debacle demonstrates how stupid it is to risk so much based on technicality that goes against common sense.

Perhaps if those who advise on tax affairs were required to deposit saved tax into escrow for 6 years just in case "scheme" get challenged by HMRC then it would remove a lot of temptation.

 

[Churchill]

I doubt many of them deposited the difference between tax due normally (40%) and tax paid (3.5%) in escrow account just in case their "scheme" does not work.

This BN66 debacle demonstrates how stupid it is to risk so much based on technicality that goes against common sense.

Have you got the balls to go over to that thread and tell them all?

Thought not.

 

[AtW]

Have you got the balls to go over to that thread and tell them all?

Yes, but it will be deleted by mods, plus they already know my views, not that they give a **** about anything other than stuff that supports their point of view.

 

[Churchill]

Yes, but it will be deleted by mods, plus they already know my views, not that they give a **** about anything other than stuff that supports their point of view.

Yellow commie bastard.

 

[AtW]

Yellow commie bastard.

More like brown - big time sun here in Corfu