PDA

View Full Version : Forthcoming General Election - send a message to the Chancellor NOW ...



dangerouswhensober
20th April 2015, 10:31
... and the message should be - "Turkeys don't vote for Xmas !!"

I had intended to start this thread in the week before the General Election, but I can't see any reason to delay any further.

I'm one of the many individuals (40,000+) who are being chased for tax on a retrospective basis thanks to the actions of this Government and this Chancellor.

In the previous General Elections during my life-time, I've either voted Conservative or abstained - in other words, I've never actively voted against the Conservatives.

But this election is different. I WILL NOT support a party which is responsible for unfairly persecuting a hard-working, law-abiding section of the community - namely contractors who used totally legal tax-minimisation schemes prior to 2012.

So Mr Osborne (and you too Mr Gauke) understand the following:

(1) I will vote for any party which keeps you out of power for another term - and I sincerely hope that 40,000+ people will do the same thing (and the employees of 10,000+ companies also being chased ...)

(2) I will actively campaign against you and your rotten cash-generating strategies, by telling my story to as many of my friends as possible. (I figure that if 40,000 contracts each persuade three friends to vote anti-Tory, that will be 150,000+ votes that the the Torys don't get - not a massive number, but certainly enough to sway the balance against the Tories in a few marginal seats).

Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating that anyone should vote Labour regardless to keep the Tories out - the Labour Party has already made big noises about how they will chase 'tax avoiders and evaders' if they are returned to power. (But it seems to me that Labour proposals are mainly targeted against large companies like Starbucks, not individuals ...)

From a stretegic point of view, IMO our best election outcome is a 'hung' parliament - because a weak Government (either Labour or Tory) will have a problem pushing through any legislation (including any further draconian powers for HMRC).

I therefore suggest that all persecuted contractors should vote in their own constituencies for any minority candidate who has a chance of either taking the seat or unseating the current Tory MP.

I know that some will regard this post as negative, even nihilistic - and I'm expecting to get some very negative feed-back.

But let me just re-iterate: "Turkeys don't vote for Xmas".

Also - I'm not a great believer in "turning the other cheek" - if you have been persecuted unfairly (as we have, by the Osbourne/Gauke/Homer axis), now is the time to get some revenge.

(BTW - Osborne had a majority of 14,487 at the last election, but he was preceded by Martin Bell, who was an Independent - so his seat may not be as safe as it looks. Gauke had a majority of 14,920 - but his position as Financial Secretary to the Treatury might be put at risk by any kind of coalition).

Fire away people - shoot me down in flames ...:-)

TykeMerc
20th April 2015, 10:58
May I point out that not only was the situation you're currently dealing with started under a Labour Government with a clear majority, but all of the political parties see taking on tax avoidance as some type of Holy Grail (as well as a cause for jihad) to help win votes.

If you honestly think that your treatment under any future UK Government is likely to change then quite honestly you should lay off the crack pipe, it's rotting your brain.

Mug27
20th April 2015, 11:22
May I point out that not only was the situation you're currently dealing with started under a Labour Government with a clear majority, but all of the political parties see taking on tax avoidance as some type of Holy Grail (as well as a cause for jihad) to help win votes.

If you honestly think that your treatment under any future UK Government is likely to change then quite honestly you should lay off the crack pipe, it's rotting your brain.

Completely agree. Tax avoiders and paedophiles are the two groups that everyone can vent their spleen on without being accused of a hate crime and what great headines it makes. Whichever bunch of arse wipes get in, this is always going to be there now so use your vote on the policies that differentiate the parties not the ones they'll all follow.

squirrel
20th April 2015, 11:54
Absolutely agree with all posts in this thread and get it entirely but as I'm completely fooked regardless of who gets in I'm with DWS on this one, Anyone But Tories. They allowed this sh1t to get through on their watch, I am blaming them. Oh and because they've also fooked me with Higher Income Child Beneift Charge on someone else's kids!

David Cameron does not deserve to be the figurehead for this country. Neither does Miliband for that matter.

Am I allowed to say that? Last time I mentioned it might be time for a radical overhaul of the political system on these threads someone kindly pointed out that I should count myself lucky that we don't live in the kind of country that shoots people if you disagree with the state. That was nice of them :-)

webberg
20th April 2015, 12:07
As somebody who has had a career in tax for close to 40 years, I have had to divorce my personal political views from the effect that the various administrations over this period have created in my working day. My professional opinion is that the political parties engaged in the present election all have similar policies towards "avoidance".

That policy is to make "avoidance" mean a very wide range of things and to punish all those who indulged in the past or now. This brings cash to the Exchequer and votes to the politicians. The number of past and present "avoiders" is not that high in absolute terms. The number of people in PAYE schemes where it's much harder to avoid a high effective rate is very high.

My opinion is therefore that although 150,000 seems a lot, it's not. Registered voters in the UK are around 46m. So say 3%. Enough to make a difference in marginals if concentrated but they're not.

I admire and respect the enthusiasm (or rage driven energy) behind the proposal but I think you need to select an achievable outcome, put in place a mechanism to get there and then fuel the process with your anger.

Achievable outcome might be a one off amnesty at a sensible compromise figure (i.e. basic rate tax on alleged income, no interest, no penalty).

Mechanism might be a mix of political pressure (threat from thousands of bankruptcies, personal stories, adverse press, social media campaigns), alternative technical and legal analysis, careful selection of cases to advance/delay.

All of the above needs one thing - COMMITMENT.

It needs a driving force that lasts beyond this election and probably through the next. It needs organising, funding and leadership. It needs to learn the lessons of history that successful campaigns have taught and avoid the errors of those that failed. It needs membership. It must develop working relationships with the media and be smart in its countering of HMRC/HMT/HMG spinning of situations.

It also needs to be REALISTIC.

Contractors who used EBT's or loans in various forms have been targeted and short of HMG intervention, make no mistake, will pay. If the current crop of cases fail, others will be brought. You can guarantee that some of the copycat schemes that you saw once the initial plans seemed to work, are not as well executed as they should be.

The aim should therefore be to make that payment as low as possible.

This will not be a tale of the sword of truth and integrity defeating the chameleon hydra in a final epic battle.

This will be hard, frustrating, infuriating, two steps forward, one back, dealing with capricious and faceless officials and time consuming, all prevading task which will gain you friends and respect in your community but approbation in the tabloid headlines. Be prepared to be personally attacked and to have the goalposts moved.

As I said, I admire the energy and conviction BUT give this some careful thought.

StrengthInNumbers
20th April 2015, 12:10
I will vote libdem just to have a hung parliament. More divided they are better.

webberg
20th April 2015, 12:11
Absolutely agree with all posts in this thread and get it entirely but as I'm completely fooked regardless of who gets in I'm with DWS on this one, Anyone But Tories. They allowed this sh1t to get through on their watch, I am blaming them. Oh and because they've also fooked me with Higher Income Child Beneift Charge on someone else's kids!

David Cameron does not deserve to be the figurehead for this country. Neither does Miliband for that matter.

Am I allowed to say that? Last time I mentioned it might be time for a radical overhaul of the political system on these threads someone kindly pointed out that I should count myself lucky that we don't live in the kind of country that shoots people if you disagree with the state. That was nice of them :-)

I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it.

webberg
20th April 2015, 12:17
I will vote libdem just to have a hung parliament. More divided they are better.

You think a minority Government or another coalition will make much difference?

Such administrations could make life much harder.

If a minority Government says "I want to increase benefits by taking money from tax avoiders" or "I'll fund military rehab centres from fines for bank malpractice" or "let's ban the use of husband and wife companies to pay for an NIC reduction" what are their chances of being voted down?

All the main parties have similar objectives here and will not lose votes by being tough. No minority party or coalition partner will vote against that.

StrengthInNumbers
20th April 2015, 21:47
Fair point. My should not vote😁

LandRover
21st April 2015, 06:01
I think the Conservatives have really surprised many on how they have acted towards freelancers and contractors over the last 5 years. I would have expected what has happened from a Labour government, after all they brought about IR35 and so began the nightmare for many...

Osborne & Gaulke have gone about this without any thought to fairness and the rule of law that has been always enshrined in UK law, that we are fair minded and pragmatic when bringing about legislation. Their action to using the Dotas list and applying retrospective action is utterly non-Conservative, and many who have voted for them in the past will NEVER vote for them again.

The LibLabCons really are all the same nowadays, look for easy pickings for taking money from people so they can spend it on crazy issues like foreign aid when we have many in UK using food banks!

BrilloPad
21st April 2015, 07:24
NTRT spent 3 years campaigning against retrospection and got nowhere. If it wasn't for the "George" argument they would probably have disbanded by now.

Whoever gets into power does what the uncivil disservice tells them to.

I wish you were right though.

Boobetty
21st April 2015, 15:49
As has been said above, I am fairly confident that nothing will change if there is a change in government, so our best efforts should be concentrated on wasting as much HMRC time as possible. For example:

1) every Contractor should make representations against the APN's they receive. These should be submitted 89.9 days after the issue date.

2) every contractor should engaged in the settlement opportunity, if for no other reason than to waste a bit of HMRC time.

3) every contractor should be making freedom of information requests

4) basically anything that takes up just a little bit of time and resource just to ensure our friends on board the HMS HMRC aren't given enough time to count their final salary pension schemes

This may sound childish to some....that's because it is. But did you know that the average child smiles 300 times a day. Can't remember the last time I did that!

ads1980
21st April 2015, 19:34
I will vote libdem just to have a hung parliament. More divided they are better.

My MP is a conservative. It's a very blue seat but sometimes lib dems do get in. I initially wrote to my conservative MP when this was all kicking off and he sent me a few snotty replies. So a few days ago I sent both him and the lib dem representative a tweet asking why I should vote for them. Snotty con replied asking me to call or email him and when I reminded him of the APN situation I never heard anything else. The lib dem representative has asked me to email details so they can have a look at it and get back to me. Ultimately, I don't want the n0b of a conservative MP to win his seat back so I will be voting lib dem in the hope of getting him removed. I know this won't make any difference in the grand scheme of things but I have a personal grudge with him now.

dangerouswhensober
22nd April 2015, 15:00
Once upon a time there was a Bully. This nasty person liked to rob innocent people, and he also liked to beat them up using a Very Big Stick which he owned. The Bully liked his Very Big Stick so much that he kept making it bigger and bigger, so that it would be more effective and would cause more and more pain.

One day, the Bully came upon an Innocent Man. The Bully started beating the Innocent Man using the Very Big Stick. He kept repeating "You have been bad - so now you must give me all of your money - I'll tell everybody that you have been bad - and I'll keep beating you until you give me your money ...".

Now the Innocent Man knew that he hadn't done anything wrong, so he said to the Bully: "I'm innocent - I haven't done anything wrong - please stop beating me".

But the Bully wouldn't listen - he just kept beating harder and harder.

Suddenly, the Bully said to the Innocent Man: "I need your permission to keep beating you - please will you let me keep beating you ?". (By the way, the Bully didn't actually stop the beating whilst he was asking for permission).

Of course, the Innocent Man replied "No, you can't have my permission - please stop beating me now !"

But the Bully just said "No - I'm just going to keep beating you. If you don't give me your permission, I'll have to stop. But if I stop, there is another Bully, and he's even bigger than me, and he will beat you even harder than I do - in fact, he'll be using my Very Big Stick instead of me - so please give me your permission to keep beating you".

So the Innocent Man had to decide what to do ...

And, not surprisingly, he told the Bully: "You don't have my permission !". And he also told the Bigger Bully: "You don't have my permission either !".

And, after this, in the time-honoured fashion of all good fairy stories, they all lived happily ever after (well, they certainly do in my dreams). The Bully and the Bigger Bully had to make friends with some very small bullies, and the smaller bullies wouldn't let them continue with their bad behaviour ...

And the moral of the story is: "TURKEYS DON'T VOTE FOR XMAS !!"

P.s. Webburg - I fully agree with your comments and recommended strategy (post #5 in this thread) - in fact I'm expecting and planning for a long fight over the next few years - but this thread was started to comment on tactics in the short term (i.e. over the next seven weeks).

(Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. - Sun Tsu "The Art Of War").

P.p.s. Boobetty - I also fully agree with your comments (post #12) - anything which ties-up HMRC resources (and/or causes them to make mistakes) increases the liklihood that payments will be delayed/deferred. There was a good article discussing this liklihood published last year:
Use of APN power could backfire on HMRC, says expert (http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2014/july/use-of-apn-power-could-backfire-on-hmrc-says-expert/)

(If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him. - Sun Tsu "The Art Of War").

Final comment: The Labour party has already stated that, should they gain power, they will instigate a root-and-branch reform of HMRC. This can only be good for our cause - reorganising a huge institution like HMRC will almost certainly result in massive disruption/delay to ongoing cases. I have a good contractor friend who was with Montpelier - he hadn't paid when I first met him seven years ago, and he still hasn't paid a penny - I'd be happy to be in his position in seven years time - with a bit of luck I'll be either retired abroad or dead :-)

malvolio
22nd April 2015, 15:13
Final comment: The Labour party has already stated that, should they gain power, they will instigate a root-and-branch reform of HMRC.
And you seriously believe them? And you seriously believe that any such reform will be to do anything other than move as many people as possible towards paying taxes on the same level as employees...? After all, taxing everyone's income at a marginal rate of 60% is a simplification.

And you would do well to remember who enabled this whole f***ing mess in the first place.

flamel
22nd April 2015, 17:18
This is more like Morton's Fork.

The evil elves at HMRC persuaded the Labour party to introduce retrospective legislation (s58), as the people affected weren't paying their union dues. They lost the election and Lord Snooty and his pals took over.

The elves at HMRC saw an opportunity to cover themselves in glory, so persuaded Lord Snooty and his pals to introduce further retrospective legislation to stuff up even more of the annoying peasants who were taking millions away from their mates' big consultancy firms.

Lord Snooty and his pals then needed to win an election, so they dreamed up a cash grab and came up with APNs, as they didn't want to sound like Cyprus.

So do you vote for the people who have avowed to smash contractors as they are outside the union and are nasty middle class professionals. Or do you vote for Lord Snooty and his pals who have completely screwed you and have vowed to further smash contractors as they are outside the system and reduce their mates' earning power?

Choices, choices....:eek:

webberg
22nd April 2015, 21:05
Is it not the case that IPSE asked the political parties for a comment on how they would treat contractors and all but the Labour party replied?

Quote

Our first Finance Bill will close the tax loopholes that cost the Exchequer billions
of pounds a year. We will introduce tougher penalties for those abusing the
tax system, end unfair tax breaks used by hedge funds and others, and bear
down on disguised employment

From the Labour Manifesto.

"Disguised employment"..

Exactly the same words as used when IR35 was introduced by ... drum roll .... the Labour Party.

Expect no favours.

StrengthInNumbers
22nd April 2015, 22:52
May be better vote for conservatives - better to have a devil we know. Of all the manifestos conservatives sound most sensible to me. Keep evaluating.

dangerouswhensober
23rd April 2015, 09:03
Is it not the case that IPSE asked the political parties for a comment on how they would treat contractors and all but the Labour party replied?

Quote

Our first Finance Bill will close the tax loopholes that cost the Exchequer billions
of pounds a year. We will introduce tougher penalties for those abusing the
tax system, end unfair tax breaks used by hedge funds and others, and bear
down on disguised employment

From the Labour Manifesto.

"Disguised employment"..

Exactly the same words as used when IR35 was introduced by ... drum roll .... the Labour Party.

Expect no favours.

That's as maybe, but I don't see the word "retrospective" in that quote from the Labour Manifesto.

The major beef that contractors have against the current Government & HMRC is not that opportunites for tax minimisation have been reduced, but that the legislation has been enacted retrospectively. For my own part, I don't mind if any future Government closes perceived "loopholes" - I (and all contractors) have the choice to go permie any time we think that the rewards of contracting (such as they are) don't match the risks.

Also, even if the word "retrospective" were to be included in the Labour pledges, I believe they would have a very hard job in applying that to myself and most other true contractors. During the past eight years, I have worked for four (major) companies. During each contract (which has usually been 3 or 6 months, extendable depending on project length), I have received no pension contributions, no holiday pay, no sick pay, and no other company employee benefits of any kind. I suggest that any competent lawyer could easily demonstrate in a court of law that I have not been in any kind of permie employment (disguised or otherwise).

And in answer to flamel: "So do you vote for the people who have avowed to smash contractors as they are outside the union and are nasty middle class professionals. Or do you vote for Lord Snooty and his pals who have completely screwed you and have vowed to further smash contractors as they are outside the system and reduce their mates' earning power?"

You vote for neither - the more divided the next Government is, the harder it will be for them to enact extremist legislation of any kind. So vote for the party which will have the greatest unstabilising effect in your own constituency - especially if your current MP is Conservative.

Remember - "TURKEYS DON'T VOTE FOR XMAS !!"

LandRover
23rd April 2015, 09:45
That's as maybe, but I don't see the word "retrospective" in that quote from the Labour Manifesto.

The major beef that contractors have against the current Government & HMRC is not that opportunites for tax minimisation have been reduced, but that the legislation has been enacted retrospectively. For my own part, I don't mind if any future Government closes perceived "loopholes" - I (and all contractors) have the choice to go permie any time we think that the rewards of contracting (such as they are) don't match the risks.


:yay:

For a Conservative government to legislate so vindictively has been a major shocker to many :eek:. Don't buy into this coming from the liberals, but Gauke's hands are all over it. And to think his previous job was in tax planning. To bring about legislation in a fair-minded democracy is to make legislation law from a date in the future, so people can make arrangements, that has always been the case in the past. Its shockingly unfair legislation and it has the Tories dirty hands all over it.

They will NEVER get my vote again.

malvolio
23rd April 2015, 09:55
I may be wrong but the legal start point for what is seen as retrospection is Dec 2008 when HMRC via the Autumn Statement said that as of this point all "schemes" (define as you will) will be subject to review. That would have been planned over the preceding 12 months at a minimum (there were plenty of signs it was coming throughout the year). The actual prosecution of that decision kicked off much later, I agree, after HMRC had started their data capture but it was a Labour-led initiative; all the Tories did was not refuse to enact something that was already well in train.

I object to the whole concept of retrospection in taxation as much as anyone, but let's at least remember who's fault it was.

webberg
23rd April 2015, 10:04
Unpopular though the view is, aside from section 58 FA 2008 which was introduced to counter a specific offshore based structure, there has been NO RETROSPECTION.

I'm not trying to minimise the impact of APN but it's not retrospective LAW.

It applies from sometime in 2014 and says that if tax is in dispute at that date, then HMG will hold it until the dispute is resolved.

The big lie from HMRC that got this approved was that it is taxpayers holding up agreement of dispute when in fact it was more likely HMRC.

The big challenge is to get HMRC into Court as quickly as possible if they hold the money. You can guarantee that they will use every trick they can to delay cases they might lose.

I think I had a group of clients in this situation (and who knows, I might), I'd call it Sisyphus.

ads1980
23rd April 2015, 10:44
:yay:

For a Conservative government to legislate so vindictively has been a major shocker to many :eek:. Don't buy into this coming from the liberals, but Gauke's hands are all over it. And to think his previous job was in tax planning. To bring about legislation in a fair-minded democracy is to make legislation law from a date in the future, so people can make arrangements, that has always been the case in the past. Its shockingly unfair legislation and it has the Tories dirty hands all over it.




They will NEVER get my vote again.


As I've already said, my local MP is a conservative and when I first contacted him about all of this he might as well have told me to f'off. The seat in my local constituency is very close and the cons won it by 1000 votes last time. So the only other party in my area that can win are the lib dems. I am voting for them purely to get mr arse conservative out of his seat not because I think it will make any difference if the cons aren't in power. I think we are too far down the line now to change any of this.

dangerouswhensober
23rd April 2015, 11:42
As I've already said, my local MP is a conservative and when I first contacted him about all of this he might as well have told me to f'off. The seat in my local constituency is very close and the cons won it by 1000 votes last time. So the only other party in my area that can win are the lib dems. I am voting for them purely to get mr arse conservative out of his seat not because I think it will make any difference if the cons aren't in power. I think we are too far down the line now to change any of this.

That's the spirit ! :)

It seems to me that, in your constituency, if you vote LibDem, there might be enough UKIP/LibDem defectors amongst the current Cons 1000 majority to unseat the sitting Cons MP ...

Of course the ultimate target is Mr Gauke - as the prime architect and facilitator of this persecution. It's probably too much to ask that he gets the boot as an MP (his last majority was ~15,000), but he must lose his position as 'Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury' if a Labour-led coalition comes to power (and, obviously, so would Osborne, the other ring-leader). Gauke could also be out if a Conservative-led coalition takes power - it would depend on the strength of the coalition partners in requiring positions post-election.

BTW - My friends do reassure me that I'm not normally a vindictive person ...

ads1980
23rd April 2015, 11:47
That's the spirit ! :)

It seems to me that, in your constituency, if you vote LibDem, there might be enough UKIP/LibDem defectors amongst the current Cons 1000 majority to unseat the sitting Cons MP ...

Of course the ultimate target is Mr Gauke - as the prime architect and facilitator of this persecution. It's probably too much to ask that he gets the boot as an MP (his last majority was ~15,000), but he must lose his position as 'Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury' if a Labour-led coalition comes to power (and, obviously, so would Osborne, the other ring-leader). Gauke could also be out if a Conservative-led coalition takes power - it would depend on the strength of the coalition partners in requiring positions post-election.

BTW - My friends do reassure me that I'm not normally a vindictive person ...

I'm not vindictive either! Haha

It's very close. 1000 votes is nothing. In 2005 it was a whitewash for libdems so nothing is certain this time round. This is the first time I've really taken a keen interest in voting. So I hope it pays off :)

DotasScandal
23rd April 2015, 12:11
The big lie from HMRC that got this approved was that it is taxpayers holding up agreement of dispute when in fact it was more likely HMRC.

Gauke's other lie to the Finance Committee that got this approved : that everyone was cool with the principle of APNs and that only a handful of ultra-rich would be "inconvenienced".
See https://www.dotas-scandal.org/gauke-performs-magic-trick-transforms-847-responses-into-20-and-lies-to-parliament-in-the-process/

StrengthInNumbers
23rd April 2015, 15:11
Unpopular though the view is, aside from section 58 FA 2008 which was introduced to counter a specific offshore based structure, there has been NO RETROSPECTION.


When entering a Dotas scheme was tax payer aware disputed tax as per HMRC understanding will have to be paid upfront?
No. So why is it not retrospective?

DotasScandal
23rd April 2015, 15:40
When entering a Dotas scheme was tax payer aware disputed tax as per HMRC understanding will have to be paid upfront?
No. So why is it not retrospective?

Apparently, HMRC issued enquiries routinely to most taxpayers having declared a DOTAS srn on their return. And apparently, "open enquiry"="a dispute" (even if HMRC then sits on their hands for 10 years doing nothing :winker:). According to this logic, it's not retrospective as the dispute has existed for years.

Yes, I know: not exactly intuitive.:freaky:

StrengthInNumbers
23rd April 2015, 22:26
Not arguing that and dispute can continue but paying upfront is a law that is being applied retrospectively to disputes open from before.

webberg
24th April 2015, 07:07
When entering a Dotas scheme was tax payer aware disputed tax as per HMRC understanding will have to be paid upfront?
No. So why is it not retrospective?

I would have said that the mere fact a DOTAS registration was considered necessary should have been enough to at least put you on notice that your scheme was not risk free.

You also have to distinguish between retrospective LAW and retrospective EFFECT.

The APN regime produces a retrospective effect in that money you held is now to be held by another but only after a certain date, in this case the payment date of the APN.

Something like s 58 is retrospective LAW because it says that from a date earlier than the law was made, it will have effect.

I'm not going to mention this any more because clearly it's an unpopular message.

StrengthInNumbers
24th April 2015, 08:03
I am not worried about popular or not and lawyers can play in court whether retrospective effect or law.
But anyone with common sense should see that this is retrospective. No advisor or client was aware that one will need to pay upfront.
As for just Dotas should have alerted us is like me saying to my clients: it was written on the wall this project will not be successful because layers had leaky abstraction all around and no unit tests were written. I can say that because I know what I am talking about but a lawyer, a marketer, a financier will never see it. Similarly to many it contractors Dotas was just another field on the self assessment taken care of by accountants. Not that we wouldn't have understood it but for the simple fact no one including HMRC drew our attention to it.
If HMRC would have so many would have stopped using the schemes as they did after discovery and enquiry letters.

DotasScandal
24th April 2015, 08:29
As for just Dotas should have alerted us is like me saying to my clients: it was written on the wall this project will not be successful because layers had leaky abstraction all around and no unit tests were written. I can say that because I know what I am talking about but a lawyer, a marketer, a financier will never see it. Similarly to many it contractors Dotas was just another field on the self assessment taken care of by accountants. Not that we wouldn't have understood it but for the simple fact no one including HMRC drew our attention to it.
If HMRC would have so many would have stopped using the schemes as they did after discovery and enquiry letters.

Spot on.
And like I wrote here earlier: it is even worse that that, because the DOTAS srn could give the illusion of tacit HMRC approval that us law-abiding, non-tax specialist, average people were looking for.
Whether it was HMRC's intention from the onset is debatable, but in retrospect, it is pretty clear that DOTAS has been used to trap us.
If HMRC had wanted to have people drop from the schemes, a simple warning letter would have been enough to scare most away.

Instead they sat on their hands for 10 years watching as more and more were lured into their honeytrap.

:puke:

webberg
24th April 2015, 08:59
I am not worried about popular or not and lawyers can play in court whether retrospective effect or law.
But anyone with common sense should see that this is retrospective. No advisor or client was aware that one will need to pay upfront.
As for just Dotas should have alerted us is like me saying to my clients: it was written on the wall this project will not be successful because layers had leaky abstraction all around and no unit tests were written. I can say that because I know what I am talking about but a lawyer, a marketer, a financier will never see it. Similarly to many it contractors Dotas was just another field on the self assessment taken care of by accountants. Not that we wouldn't have understood it but for the simple fact no one including HMRC drew our attention to it.
If HMRC would have so many would have stopped using the schemes as they did after discovery and enquiry letters.

Playing devil's advocate for a while:

If you were an employee, you pay tax when you get paid. If you are self employed, you pay tax twice a year. If you operate via a company, the company pays PAYE etc as above and CT in instalments of between 2 and 4 a year.

In the situation of most of the EBT/loan type schemes, funds were received with NO tax deducted.

Would it have been reasonable to assume that some tax would be due?

(I know you were told it was "compliant", "registered", "endorsed by Counsel" - all of which mean nothing).

If the thought was that tax might be due but only after an argument, at the time that was valid but is now what APN seeks to reverse.

If the liability in dispute had been settled before mid 2014, no APN would be payable.

I'm not trying to defend HMRC action or inaction, nor judge why people chose one method of payment over another, nor blame people for being taken in by slick snake oil salesmen. I'm trying to point out that you all have a situation to deal with and you need to be realistic in how you address it.

This is why I don't support JR actions against APN's. It's not realistic to expect that this part of HMG policy will be reversed. It's in line with the opinion of perhaps 95% of the tax paying population, appears to be "fair"and matches the rules in other parts of the world.

Better to accept that it's a lost argument and move on to resolving the central issue.

Like I said - a personal opinion.

malvolio
24th April 2015, 09:09
Spot on.
And like I wrote here earlier: it is even worse that that, because the DOTAS srn could give the illusion of tacit HMRC approval that us law-abiding, non-tax specialist, average people were looking for.
Whether it was HMRC's intention from the onset is debatable, but in retrospect, it is pretty clear that DOTAS has been used to trap us.
If HMRC had wanted to have people drop from the schemes, a simple warning letter would have been enough to scare most away.

Instead they sat on their hands for 10 years watching as more and more were lured into their honeytrap.

:puke:
Two things slightly wrong with that view. Firstly clear warnings were given in 2008 that all DOTAS and other avoidance schemes would be looked at to verify their tax position. Secondly, HMRC do not have infinite resources and followed a prioritised list; the whole point of the original 2008 statement was to establish the start point.

Of course people may well not have seen these warnings - they weren't that widely published and I don't suppose for a minute that scheme providers were handing over lists of their customers to HMRC - but HMRC should be accused of inefficiency and/or incompetence, not malice. Ultimately, paying the right amount of tax - define that how you will - is your responsibility; all HMRC are doing, in their own eyes, is correcting past mistakes.

StrengthInNumbers
24th April 2015, 09:24
We know the issue now and dealing with it.
Not all money was received. 20 odd percent was deduct. Compare this with limited company and you clearly feel I am paying a bit more to be more compliant than a limited company.

DotasScandal
24th April 2015, 09:38
This is why I don't support JR actions against APN's. It's not realistic to expect that this part of HMG policy will be reversed. It's in line with the opinion of perhaps 95% of the tax paying population, appears to be "fair"and matches the rules in other parts of the world.

"Two-thirds of Britons opposed to HMRC powers to demand disputed tax through Accelerated Payment Notices" (http://www.hmrc-accountability.com/two-thirds-of-britons-opposed-to-hmrc-powers-to-demand-disputed-tax-through-accelerated-payment-notices/)

As for "matching the rules in other parts of the World" argument, I'd seriously be interested in seeing any other examples where a tax authority is allowed to create a "debt" out of thin air without having the arrangements examined by a court first.

TykeMerc
24th April 2015, 10:40
We know the issue now and dealing with it.
Not all money was received. 20 odd percent was deduct. Compare this with limited company and you clearly feel I am paying a bit more to be more compliant than a limited company.

Was that 20% deduction for payment of tax or scheme provider fees? Was that typical of all schemes or just the one you were in?

The retention percentage isn't going to carry any weight with HMRC, they will argue that an amount of tax is due on your income (whether that amount makes any sense is a different matter) and expect to be paid unless you can defeat them in some way. They won't be interested in any fee you paid to the scheme, that is between you and the scheme administrators

dangerouswhensober
24th April 2015, 11:17
Playing devil's advocate for a while:

This is why I don't support JR actions against APN's. It's not realistic to expect that this part of HMG policy will be reversed. It's in line with the opinion of perhaps 95% of the tax paying population, appears to be "fair"and matches the rules in other parts of the world.


"It's in line with the opinion of perhaps 95% of the tax paying population ..."

Could I ask where you got that figure from ? (DotasScandal has revealed his sources above ...)

"... appears to be 'fair' ..."

Exactly how does being tried, found guilty, and punished by your persecutor (not an idependent court) with no opportunity to establish innocence before being punished 'appear to be fair' ?

"and matches the rules in other parts of the world."

Sure - India and Kenya (amongst others) have similar provisions for advance payment of disputed tax. But then in India (by law) the Government has to approve any (and every) work dismissal, and suicide is legal but failing isn't - you will be prosecuted. And in Kenya it is illegal to walk the streets with no money in your pockets (the reason being that if you have no money it is presumed that you will want to steal) ... Just because something is legal in another part of the world doesn't make it any more justifiable or suitable for the UK.

Also "It's not realistic to expect that this part of HMG policy will be reversed." - Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a duly appointed court with sufficient authority concludes that a law is wrong (in the sense of unjust) then HMG has no choice to modify or withdraw that law - that's the whole point of JR - and that is also the main reason the Government tried to get rid of the JR process last year ...

webberg
24th April 2015, 11:22
"Two-thirds of Britons opposed to HMRC powers to demand disputed tax through Accelerated Payment Notices" (http://www.hmrc-accountability.com/two-thirds-of-britons-opposed-to-hmrc-powers-to-demand-disputed-tax-through-accelerated-payment-notices/)

As for "matching the rules in other parts of the World" argument, I'd seriously be interested in seeing any other examples where a tax authority is allowed to create a "debt" out of thin air without having the arrangements examined by a court first.

https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Managing-your-tax-debt/Help-with-paying-your-tax-debt/Disputing-your-debt/

The above is Australia. They have had a pay first argue later system for a long time. I could pull up something similar for the US, Germany, Sweden etc.

The "survey" result from a self interest group carries little weight without seeing the questions asked, the format, the population tested, etc.

I'm sure if the question was ;

Do you think HMRC should be able to deduct funds from your bank account if they think there is tax due?

Then almost everybody says "no".

If the question was:

Do you think HMRC should be able to deduct funds from the bank account of somebody they suspect of tax avoidance but who is not co-operating with an enquiry?

Then perhaps fewer would say "no"?

On a personal level I object to APN because of the fact that an appeal cannot be made and the amount demanded in particular is not subject to independent review.

I object to HMG having cash in advance of final agreed liability ONLY because it puts even more control over timing in the hands of HMRC and history shows that they manipulate the Courts to advance winnable cases over more balanced ones.

The above and swapping links is ultimately pointless however. We are where we are. Find practical ways to solve the position.

I will repeat my view that the various groups here MUST find a way to combine their resources and seek a solution for the several thousand people rather than a few hundred in the forum and perhaps a few dozen who are active.

Division by provider makes little sense in seeking a solution. HMRC know this and will pick off the weakest one by one.

DotasScandal
24th April 2015, 11:34
The "survey" result from a self interest group carries little weight without seeing the questions asked, the format, the population tested, etc.
I'm sure if the question was ;
Do you think HMRC should be able to deduct funds from your bank account if they think there is tax due?

Actually, it's all there in clear text if you click on the link:

Q: "Do you support or oppose HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) having the ability to demand money they believe is owed to them in taxes without reviewing an individual’s self-assessment or proving their case in court?"

Support 16%
Oppose 66%
Don’t know 18%
Base: GB adults (n=2,011)

Methodology Note: ComRes interviewed 2,011 British adults online between 18th and 19th February 2014. Data were weighted to be representative of all GB adults aged 18+. ComRes is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules."

By the way, most surveys are commissioned by "self-interest" groups. That doesn't make them invalid...

dangerouswhensober
24th April 2015, 11:57
I will repeat my view that the various groups here MUST find a way to combine their resources and seek a solution for the several thousand people rather than a few hundred in the forum and perhaps a few dozen who are active.

Division by provider makes little sense in seeking a solution. HMRC know this and will pick off the weakest one by one.

I do agree with that Webberg. I also think that (given your previous employment as a minion of Sauron) you are the perfect person to act as 'Devil's Advocat' ...

BTW: The US may have a 'pay first argue later' tax system - but in the US any lunatic with the correct paperwork is legally permitted to buy guns and unlimited quantities of ammunition - not something we should aim to emulate over here, surely ...

flamel
24th April 2015, 11:57
https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Managing-your-tax-debt/Help-with-paying-your-tax-debt/Disputing-your-debt/

The above is Australia. They have had a pay first argue later system for a long time. I could pull up something similar for the US, Germany, Sweden etc.

The "survey" result from a self interest group carries little weight without seeing the questions asked, the format, the population tested, etc.

I'm sure if the question was ;

Do you think HMRC should be able to deduct funds from your bank account if they think there is tax due?

Then almost everybody says "no".

If the question was:

Do you think HMRC should be able to deduct funds from the bank account of somebody they suspect of tax avoidance but who is not co-operating with an enquiry?

Then perhaps fewer would say "no"?

On a personal level I object to APN because of the fact that an appeal cannot be made and the amount demanded in particular is not subject to independent review.

I object to HMG having cash in advance of final agreed liability ONLY because it puts even more control over timing in the hands of HMRC and history shows that they manipulate the Courts to advance winnable cases over more balanced ones.

The above and swapping links is ultimately pointless however. We are where we are. Find practical ways to solve the position.

I will repeat my view that the various groups here MUST find a way to combine their resources and seek a solution for the several thousand people rather than a few hundred in the forum and perhaps a few dozen who are active.

Division by provider makes little sense in seeking a solution. HMRC know this and will pick off the weakest one by one.

Good points, especially regarding people swapping comments to the already converted.
I note the Australian system - I wonder if they applied this retrospectively when they introduced it in the first place? (Probably not)
And I wonder whether HRMC have this system in place?
https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Managing-your-tax-debt/Help-with-paying-your-tax-debt/Serious-hardship/
I'm almost certain they don't.

If the pay first argue later was applied, most people would know where they stood and manage their affairs in accordance. The problem for us is HMRC applying this retrospectively for ten years (or more in some cases), where the ability to manage is impossible in many cases.

What is needed is the equivalent of NTRT for EBT users - an actual, real, well funded group comprising experts in tax / tax law / dealing with HMRC - that could actually make a difference. I, for one, am prepared to pay, just like I would do for professional advice.

The other serious issue is that there may be tens of thousands of people affected who have no clue whatsoever about any of this. Only a very small proportion have even heard of CUK and of those, even less go as far as to join and post a comment. How could these people get signed up in a joined up way?

Many of us posters on CUK work full time, have wives, kids, mortgages etc and don't have the expertise anyway.

Any volunteers?

webberg
24th April 2015, 12:02
"It's in line with the opinion of perhaps 95% of the tax paying population ..."

Could I ask where you got that figure from ? (DotasScandal has revealed his sources above ...)

"... appears to be 'fair' ..."

Exactly how does being tried, found guilty, and punished by your persecutor (not an idependent court) with no opportunity to establish innocence before being punished 'appear to be fair' ?

"and matches the rules in other parts of the world."

Sure - India and Kenya (amongst others) have similar provisions for advance payment of disputed tax. But then in India (by law) the Government has to approve any (and every) work dismissal, and suicide is legal but failing isn't - you will be prosecuted. And in Kenya it is illegal to walk the streets with no money in your pockets (the reason being that if you have no money it is presumed that you will want to steal) ... Just because something is legal in another part of the world doesn't make it any more justifiable or suitable for the UK.

Also "It's not realistic to expect that this part of HMG policy will be reversed." - Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a duly appointed court with sufficient authority concludes that a law is wrong (in the sense of unjust) then HMG has no choice to modify or withdraw that law - that's the whole point of JR - and that is also the main reason the Government tried to get rid of the JR process last year ...

It's based on conversations I have with a number of taxpayers and those on various forms of benefits who I meet in the course of one of my projects. It has no scientific basis and I have not carried out a poll, weighted or otherwise. It such anecdotal evidence is considered inaccurate, by all means ignore it, but consider that it might be just as valid as answers to a loaded question.

You have not been tried, found guilty and punished. You have been put on notice that HMRC considers the tax planning you did to be ineffective and that you should have paid more tax than you did. Whether they are correct or not has yet to be established. The "trial" has not even started.

"Punished" is subjective. As far as I can see you are not being asked for a penalty or fine. You are being asked to pay tax on funds received.

I'll take your word on the situation in India and Kenya. The point I was making is that in comparison with other developed economies the UK was arguably "behind" in this area. I'm not justifying the policy, just drawing a comparison.

A JR does not question the "just" nature of a law. It tests whether the law as enacted is applied in a just and reasonable way. That includes the purpose, effect and mechanism for execution. The point of Separation of Powers is so that the judiciary can point out to the Executive the unfair (unjust if you like) nature of the law and ask that it be amended but the Judiciary does NOT make (or break) law. That is reserved for Parliament.

The opinion I gave on the intention of Parliament that the rules are here to stay is a personal one. Feel free to ignore it.

Such philosophy is good fun and distracting but the point remains.

Fair or unfair (and they are very subjective terms) the situation has to be dealt with and recognising the relative position everybody is in is a step towards that.

webberg
24th April 2015, 12:07
Actually, it's all there in clear text if you click on the link:

Q: "Do you support or oppose HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) having the ability to demand money they believe is owed to them in taxes without reviewing an individual’s self-assessment or proving their case in court?"

Support 16%
Oppose 66%
Don’t know 18%
Base: GB adults (n=2,011)

Methodology Note: ComRes interviewed 2,011 British adults online between 18th and 19th February 2014. Data were weighted to be representative of all GB adults aged 18+. ComRes is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules."

By the way, most surveys are commissioned by "self-interest" groups. That doesn't make them invalid...

Thank you. I should perhaps take more time to research.

The question is perhaps biased but probably no more so than the various surveys HMRC uses to justify its existence.

As I've said elsewhere my number was anecdotal and certainly does not have the bona fides above.

I must therefore qualify my earlier "95%" as being a personal view.

webberg
24th April 2015, 12:09
I do agree with that Webberg. I also think that (given your previous employment as a minion of Sauron) you are the perfect person to act as 'Devil's Advocat' ...

BTW: The US may have a 'pay first argue later' tax system - but in the US any lunatic with the correct paperwork is legally permitted to buy guns and unlimited quantities of ammunition - not something we should aim to emulate over here, surely ...

Love the "minion of Sauron".

The US is different. they publish a list of "approved" and "unapproved" tax planning schemes.

If you do one of the "unapproved" or one that is not on either list, you can be required to pay the tax before substantive discussion starts.

DotasScandal
24th April 2015, 12:22
If the pay first argue later was applied, most people would know where they stood and manage their affairs in accordance. The problem for us is HMRC applying this retrospectively for ten years (or more in some cases), where the ability to manage is impossible in many cases.

This. Sensible policy is about leaving people some sort of realistic way out, not crushing them with your heel because you can.
In our case, HMRC have pushed people into a corner with no options.
They should therefore not be surprised to face fierce resistance at best, and passive/aggressive behaviour across the board at worst (the laughable "settlement opportunity" shall not be mentioned here, as it has been exposed for what it really is).

Agree with the "preaching to the choir" argument to some extent, but think discussion is always useful. Mr.Webberg's views re HMRC and the possibility of having a sensible, honest discussion with them seem to have evolved somehow already... Probably not because of this forum, but it's good to share perspectives.

Also agree with the strategic plan. Certainly, there is enormous potential for things to be done if we gain a critical mass. However, you will find that if you keep asking for "volunteers", you will rapidly find yourself very alone (no matter how many pledges you get). You have to start doing things and hope others join you.
(Generally, you'd start small, but in our case, we have to start big as we do not have the luxury of time...)

malvolio
24th April 2015, 12:26
Actually, it's all there in clear text if you click on the link:

Q: "Do you support or oppose HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) having the ability to demand money they believe is owed to them in taxes without reviewing an individual’s self-assessment or proving their case in court?"

Support 16%
Oppose 66%
Don’t know 18%
Base: GB adults (n=2,011)

Methodology Note: ComRes interviewed 2,011 British adults online between 18th and 19th February 2014. Data were weighted to be representative of all GB adults aged 18+. ComRes is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules."

By the way, most surveys are commissioned by "self-interest" groups. That doesn't make them invalid...
How about if the questions was "Do you think HMRC should be able to deduct tax from your bank account if they think there is a risk it may be hidden away out of their reach?"...

DotasScandal
24th April 2015, 12:34
How about if the questions was "Do you think HMRC should be able to deduct tax from your bank account if they think there is a risk it may be hidden away out of their reach?"...

If my aunt had boll*cks, would that make her my uncle?

webberg
24th April 2015, 12:58
Let's indulge in some speculation.

A group is formed.

It decides that there are perhaps 4 scheme "types" that are potentially caught by HMRC's present interpretations.

It knows that HMRC is not prepared to be sensible in settlement and therefore the only strategy is to defend a number of cases at Tribunal in the hope that a less than 100% victory for HMRC will force them to the table.

The group also defends to extent possible, APN claims and other spurious attempts from the agency to extract funds. This is on the basis that civil disobedience and tying up HMRC resource is an effective strategy.

That may require 5 years.

We'll allow 4 full time staff (admin/website/etc) and a panel of experts. Accommodation, telephone etc. Say £200,000 a year tops. So £1m over 5 years.

"Experts" budget perhaps £1.5m over that period. That's pretty much one average (in terms of charge out rate) tax specialist full time for 5 years.

So £2.5m over 5 years. Let's say £3m.

If the cost per individual was £10 a month for 60 months, how many are needed?

£3m/60/£10 = 5,000 people.

How many contractors impacted?

I don't know. If 100,000, then we're looking at 5% membership.

To get to that value requires some form of advertising campaign and that in turn requires some seed funding.

There are "litigation funders" out there. They work by advancing legal costs in return for a cut of a "win".

They might be interested. More likely something like this forum could run a pre funding group and effectively put up initial funds.

I reckon perhaps £25,000 to run the ads and initial letter/email/website stuff.

How many people here?

500? That's £50 each.

So the deal is:

Put up £50. Put up some of your undoubted IT expertise. Hire a temporary project director (on a contract). Ask for volunteers for a steering group (I'd be interested). Elect/appoint a steering committee.

Spend the initial money over 6 months and see what the response is and re-evaluate.

If this is a "go", membership is £10 a month for 60 months (perhaps less/more). Alternatively pay £500 day 1 and then nothing until month 61.

Make sure to get anybody who is willing from NTRT. Make sure to include some PR.

Anybody?

dangerouswhensober
24th April 2015, 13:41
500? That's £50 each.

So the deal is:

Put up £50. Put up some of your undoubted IT expertise. Hire a temporary project director (on a contract). Ask for volunteers for a steering group (I'd be interested). Elect/appoint a steering committee.



Everybody knows that IT contractors are well-off - personally, I use £50 notes to light my cigarettes, and £20 notes in place of toilet paper - I'll just have one less cigarette today - a small price to pay to initiate significant long-term group action.

My only caveat is that such a group action should not impinge on other actions. (For example, I'll be joining the Saleos when my first APN arrives, just to slow HMRC down - other potential members might also be part of various groups already).

Now we only need another 499 ...

(You also might want to ask Admin to make this a separate thread).

webberg
24th April 2015, 14:07
Everybody knows that IT contractors are well-off - personally, I use £50 notes to light my cigarettes, and £20 notes in place of toilet paper - I'll just have one less cigarette today - a small price to pay to initiate significant long-term group action.

My only caveat is that such a group action should not impinge on other actions. (For example, I'll be joining the Saleos when my first APN arrives, just to slow HMRC down - other potential members might also be part of various groups already).

Now we only need another 499 ...

(You also might want to ask Admin to make this a separate thread).

I would use £50's in a similar way but the ink smudges when I try.

I've expressed my views on APN actions so often here that I decline to do so again as it's getting boring.

The BIG GROUP would be focussed on solutions to the scheme, not action on APN.

If Mr/Ms Nice Admin could move the above two posts and this to a new thread I'd be grateful.

ads1980
24th April 2015, 14:11
My only caveat is that such a group action should not impinge on other actions. (For example, I'll be joining the Saleos when my first APN arrives, just to slow HMRC down - other potential members might also be part of various groups already).

Now we only need another 499 ...

(You also might want to ask Admin to make this a separate thread).
That's a very good point. I've already joined a JR through my old scheme provider which I've paid for. They have advised they will defend their scheme which I am sure will come at further cost to myself.

DotasScandal
24th April 2015, 14:19
Everybody knows that IT contractors are well-off - personally, I use £50 notes to light my cigarettes, and £20 notes in place of toilet paper

Sounds about right...According to HMRC, the average recipient of an APN makes 252k a year, or something like that....

Joking aside, I agree this post deserves its own thread.

LandRover
24th April 2015, 14:34
https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Managing-your-tax-debt/Help-with-paying-your-tax-debt/Disputing-your-debt/

The above is Australia. They have had a pay first argue later system for a long time. I could pull up something similar for the US, Germany, Sweden etc.



The issue is not pay up first argue later. Who would have a problem with that going forward from x date you will pay up front...but come on that's not how this legislation has been made law. It retrospective in that it was used with existing discovery cases, not prospective from such a date this is law. No warning, no opportunity for people to make arrangements to cease what they did.

DotasScandal
24th April 2015, 14:46
The issue is not pay up first argue later. Who would have a problem with that going forward from x date you will pay up front...but come on that's not how this legislation has been made law. It retrospective in that it was used with existing discovery cases, not prospective from such a date this is law. No warning, no opportunity for people to make arrangements to cease what they did.

Even worse: existing discoveries, and existing enquiries!

Do you smell that, kids? it's called a cash grab. Someone who wants to racket you always alleges you "owe them money"

malvolio
24th April 2015, 15:41
If my aunt had boll*cks, would that make her my uncle?
The point is that you get the answer to the question asked. Asking, as here, "Should HMRC raid people's bank accounts?" will get a firm and unsurprising No. Sadly, that is not what is happening.

If you're going to challenge these idiots, it helps to understand the whole picture.

DotasScandal
24th April 2015, 15:55
The point is that you get the answer to the question asked. Asking, as here, "Should HMRC raid people's bank accounts?" will get a firm and unsurprising No

Reading comprehension problems?
The Q was, verbatim: "Do you support or oppose HMRC having the ability to demand money they believe is owed to them in taxes without reviewing an individual’s self-assessment or proving their case in court?"

Where does it talk about raiding bank accounts?

webberg
24th April 2015, 16:26
Reading comprehension problems?
The Q was, verbatim: "Do you support or oppose HMRC having the ability to demand money they believe is owed to them in taxes without reviewing an individual’s self-assessment or proving their case in court?"

Where does it talk about raiding bank accounts?

The bit I have trouble with is "without reviewing an individual's self assessment".

In arriving at an APN value HMRC is obliged to use a calculation of the asserted advantage and they can't do that with a review of the assessment position.

However if that part was missed out the question becomes much more digital and I suspect "no" would be higher.

I think I might have phrased it

"Do you support or oppose HMRC having the ability to make a demand for tax that they believe may have been avoided via the use of a mass market scheme, even where that scheme has yet to be heard in Court?

If I was stopped in the street and asked that I would probably be arrested for treating the minimum wage student questioner to a hour of tax theory.

sl4
24th April 2015, 18:08
I will never vote for the Retro Tax party.

TykeMerc
24th April 2015, 18:31
I will never vote for the Retro Tax party.

Which one? There's 3, in fact all of the main parties.

Labour started it and the Con Lib alliance didn't stop it.

dangerouswhensober
8th May 2015, 13:50
Regardless of any personal political views, I suspect that the election result is not good news for us. With an absolute majority in the Commons, it's likely that HMG will try to steam-roller through further recovery powers for HMRC (e.g. direct recovery of debts from bank accounts, which was shelved in the committee stages of the Finance Bill last summer). They will possibly also try to progress the legislation limiting the scope for Judical Reviews (which was sent back by the Lords to the Commons last year).

The prime motivation will continue to be revenue collection (NOT the establishment of a just and fair taxation system) because the Tories are committed to lowering (or eliminating) the deficit during this Parliament.

(In my opinion, the best result would have been a weak coalition involving either of the major parties with a few minor parties).

Not very cheerful thoughts for a Friday evening - but it makes organised group opposition to HMG/HMRC even more necessary ...

DonkeyRhubarb
8th May 2015, 14:13
If you've avoided tax, or are dependent on the welfare state, be prepared to be :spank:

malvolio
8th May 2015, 15:16
...

Not very cheerful thoughts for a Friday evening - but it makes organised group opposition to HMG/HMRC even more necessary ...

Yes, if only there was some well-established organisation to take on that fight. We can but dream... :wink

TheFaQQer
8th May 2015, 15:25
If you've avoided tax, or are dependent on the welfare state, be prepared to be :spank:

Or if you didn't but run a company, do the same - because there's £8bn to whack into the NHS with no income tax, NI or VAT rises to fund it.