BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

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.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

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.

[PlaneSailing]

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.

[KiwiGuy]

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

[smalldog]

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.

[marcuss]

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

[not-a-penny]

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!

[not-a-penny]

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

[Hawkwind]

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.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

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.