BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal) BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal) - Page 3

View Poll Results: If HMRC demanded payment now, would you be at risk of losing your home?

Voters
272. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    163 59.93%
  • No

    88 32.35%
  • N/A

    21 7.72%
Page 3 of 407 FirstFirst 123451353103 ... LastLast
Posts 21 to 30 of 4069
  1. #21

    Godlike


    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KiwiGuy View Post
    under "Seeking time to pay" it say you can ask the DMB for waiver of the tax..... great all our problems are solved

    or maybe "Suspension of collection action for a period"...how about 200 years?

    i see how the conversation will go "Hi i want to make some arrangements" DMB says "Gimmie Gimmie Gimmie NOW"

    Anyone else think DMB is missing a U
    Having read the booklet, my assumption is if you owe a substantial 5 or 6 figure sum, and you can't pay up within a very short space of time then they'll start bankruptcy proceedings.

    I thought the paragraph on page 17 was very telling.

    It is important to understand that the Enforcement Office does not behave like most commercial creditors. In particular, it often petitions for bankruptcy even where it is clear that this will not benefit HM Revenue and Customs because the taxpayer has no assets. Indeed, sometimes the bankruptcy costs the government money, because the bankrupt loses their home and/or job and is forced to rely upon social housing and/or welfare benefits.
    Last edited by DonkeyRhubarb; 19th February 2010 at 13:51.

  2. #22

    Fingers like lightning

    Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Room LG76
    Posts
    516

    Default

    Be aware that in a bankruptcy case, once the order has been made, the time until it is served varies. If you have a wife/husband and critically kids, then the law grants you 12 months from when the order has been made before it is served. This is intended to give you time to arrange things for your family. This is relevant where the family home is at stake.

    I don't want to start contributing lots to this thread on BR, but it is a point worht noting.

  3. #23

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
    Having read the booklet, my assumption is if you owe a substantial 5 or 6 figure sum, and you can't pay up within a very short space of time then they'll start bankruptcy proceedings.

    I thought the paragraph on page 17 was very telling.

    It is important to understand that the Enforcement Office does not behave like most commercial creditors. In particular, it often petitions for bankruptcy even where it is clear that this will not benefit HM Revenue and Customs because the taxpayer has no assets. Indeed, sometimes the bankruptcy costs the government money, because the bankrupt loses their home and/or job and is forced to rely upon social housing and/or welfare benefits.

    So they don't keep a record of the cost of their lawyers and they
    are happy to bankrupt people EVEN if it costs the government money.

    How can they possibly judge if any of their actions actually have
    an overall benefit to the tax take?

    Could it be that the revenue pay bonuses to inspectors on the amount
    of 'extra' tax they bring in and do not consider the cost?

    If I ran projects like that, I wouldn't be worried about BN66 as I'd
    never get a job.

  4. #24

    More time posting than coding

    KiwiGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
    Having read the booklet, my assumption is if you owe a substantial 5 or 6 figure sum, and you can't pay up within a very short space of time then they'll start bankruptcy proceedings.

    I thought the paragraph on page 17 was very telling.

    It is important to understand that the Enforcement Office does not behave like most commercial creditors. In particular, it often petitions for bankruptcy even where it is clear that this will not benefit HM Revenue and Customs because the taxpayer has no assets. Indeed, sometimes the bankruptcy costs the government money, because the bankrupt loses their home and/or job and is forced to rely upon social housing and/or welfare benefits.
    as i said its missing a "U", common sense is lost on these guys
    When is comes to the HMRC and Gordy. Im a fighter not a lover

  5. #25

    Contractor Among Contractors

    smalldog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,803

    Default debt collection

    HMRC have an interesting strategy, on the one hand they are all about the bottom line as they need the tax receipts, but on the other hand they need to discourage avoidance hence their hardline on collection. So they have two clear objectives:

    - get as much cash as possible

    - discourage avoidance or flouting the rules by being hardline, even if it does cost money to do so

    sometimes the two clash and its an interesting paradox for them im sure, getting the balance right must be tough. So they have commercials at heart but Im guessing they see bankrupting people, even if it does eventually lose them money, as investing in scaring the bejesus out of people in using avoidance in order to protect future revenues by discouraging others in doing the same. The success of such a strategy is difficult to quantify and measure. So no it doesnt make sense sometimes as there are two objectives.
    Last edited by smalldog; 19th February 2010 at 14:59.

  6. #26

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    54

    Default Tax and The Beatles

    Interesting one...

    “Let me tell you how it will be
    There's one for you, nineteen for me
    Cos I'm the taxman, yeah,
    I'm the taxman
    Should five per cent appear too small
    Be thankful I don't take it all
    Cos I'm the taxman, yeah,
    I'm the taxman
    If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
    If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
    If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat
    If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet
    Taxman! Cos I'm the taxman, yeah,
    I'm the taxman…”

    read the EDITORIAL article here...
    http://cityam.com/news-and-analysis/...ht-about-taxes

  7. #27

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    40

    Default Reply from my MP (Conservative)

    Interesting reply from my MP which I received today:
    Dear …
    Thank you for contacting me about Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008.

    I share your concern over retrospection in law and sympathise with your worry. This issue will only enhance the impression that the UK has an uncertain and unstable tax system, which is bad for the UK economy as a whole as well as deeply confusing to individual taxpayers.

    As you know, in the Finance Act 2008, the Government introduced legislation aimed at clarifying a provision of the Finance Act 1987 prohibiting the use of the UK-Jersey double taxation treaty to exempt from taxation a UK member’s share of a foreign partnership’s income. It was the opinion of my Party that this legislation ought to apply prospectively and the question of whether earlier Acts prohibited these practises was an issue for the courts. We tabled such an amendment in the House of Commons but were defeated. A case has now been brought to the courts, where the measures were judged to be lawful. It is not clear whether there will not be an appeal.

    The key problem seems to be that the Government has been aware of this scheme for some years, yet made no move to close the loophole. This served to create a legitimate expectation amongst taxpayers that the practice would be tolerated by the Government, and so people have been arranging their tax affairs accordingly.

    I should stress that Conservatives believe that the Government must seek to reduce tax avoidance. We share the Government’s concern about the issue Section 58 is trying to address, but believe it should have sent a clear and unambiguous signal to taxpayers at a much earlier stage, rather than standing back and creating the impression that it would tolerate the arrangement – and then acting retrospectively.

    I’m afraid that, with the public finances in the state they are, we are unable to make any firm promises to reverse this legislation if elected, but we have put forward a number of proposals to ensure that the making of tax law is improved significantly in future, so that such situation do not arise again.
    One again, thank you for taking time to contact me.

    Yours Sincerely,
    Bob Neill M.P.
    Overall, in my opinion, the language and content is positive, except for the last paragraph which suggests that the state of the "public finances" has a bearing on what they do or don't do if they are elected. well we know what the state is so no hope there you'd think. BUT, on second reading he is saying that they cannot give any "firm promises" at this stage. There is hope!

  8. #28

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    40

    Default Question David Cameron ...

    If you've got any question for DC then this is the time to ask them.
    http://news.uk.msn.com/politics/gene...or=-2147217396

  9. #29

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
    For anyone who may not have the means to pay, this excellent booklet from TaxAid is definitely worth reading.

    It explains in detail how HMRC Debt Management operates.

    http://www.taxaid.org.uk/uploadedfil...tober_2008.pdf
    One thing I found interesting was the reference to jointly owned assets.
    Everything I own e.g. house, bank accounts is actually jointly owned between myself and my wife and has been for over 20 years of (fortunately still despite all this) happy marriage.

    For any HMRC observers I'm not proposing any artificial shifting of assets as they have been jointly owned for many years, but I am curious if they can only legitimately "get at" half of our total assets.

  10. #30

    Godlike


    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by not-a-penny View Post
    Interesting reply from my MP which I received today:

    Overall, in my opinion, the language and content is positive, except for the last paragraph which suggests that the state of the "public finances" has a bearing on what they do or don't do if they are elected. well we know what the state is so no hope there you'd think. BUT, on second reading he is saying that they cannot give any "firm promises" at this stage. There is hope!
    Do not be fooled by the apparent attention that has gone into this letter.

    It is just a rehash (cut and paste) of a letter many people received from Tory MPs this time last year, which I have no doubt was drafted by Conservative Central Office.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •