PDA

View Full Version : Appeal Process



NetContractor
9th March 2017, 13:12
My client has yet to inform me of their verdict on the state of my contractual working practices...ie. if I am in or out of IR35.

My concerns with all of this are because my contract is clearly outside of IR35, and has been reviewed and approved. However the people making this decision are in HR and removed from our office and project. It is ridiculous! Plus, because it is easier (for me) I have worked standard hours for the 2 years I have been here. Granted my hours are chosen by me, and are different to the start/finish times (and duration) of others in the office, but for someone removed from the situation, it might look like I am controlled in my hours. Plus due to ease, I use client equipment and work on client site, however I do not have to; my contract stipulates as such, I have just chosen not to enforce the contract because it is easier (for me).

Does anyone know what the appeal process is, if you do not agree with the client verdict? My (current) plan, should they come down with an inside ruling is to begin enforcing the contract. I will stagger my hours, switch to my own equipment. If I have to I will send in a sub but it is more convenient for me, not to. Either way I know that I can demonstrate I am not controlled and outside IR35. So in that I am not concerned.

I am just unsure of how I go about appealing. Of course they (may) come back with an outside verdict and I carry on as normal.

Cheers.

DaveB
9th March 2017, 13:18
My client has yet to inform me of their verdict on the state of my contractual working practices...ie. if I am in or out of IR35.

My concerns with all of this are because my contract is clearly outside of IR35, and has been reviewed and approved. However the people making this decision are in HR and removed from our office and project. It is ridiculous! Plus, because it is easier (for me) I have worked standard hours for the 2 years I have been here. Granted my hours are chosen by me, and are different to the start/finish times (and duration) of others in the office, but for someone removed from the situation, it might look like I am controlled in my hours. Plus due to ease, I use client equipment and work on client site, however I do not have to; my contract stipulates as such, I have just chosen not to enforce the contract because it is easier (for me).

Does anyone know what the appeal process is, if you do not agree with the client verdict? My (current) plan, should they come down with an inside ruling is to begin enforcing the contract. I will stagger my hours, switch to my own equipment. If I have to I will send in a sub but it is more convenient for me, not to. Either way I know that I can demonstrate I am not controlled and outside IR35. So in that I am not concerned.

I am just unsure of how I go about appealing. Of course they (may) come back with an outside verdict and I carry on as normal.

Cheers.

There is no formal appeal process. You will have to deal with it via your client co. contacts and their HR.

If you are in the Public sector and they are giving you an inside IR35 determination your best bet is just to walk away and find another gig.

NetContractor
9th March 2017, 13:29
There is no formal appeal process. You will have to deal with it via your client co. contacts and their HR.

If you are in the Public sector and they are giving you an inside IR35 determination your best bet is just to walk away and find another gig.

OK so no appeal process. I see that now....who would you appeal to. Who informs HMRC of the decision? The Client? When? How? Surely I can speak to whomever makes the decision before it gets submitted and explain the reality of the situation. The difficulty here is that the decision makers aren't even on my project, so if I CHOOSE to work a 7 hour day (most of the time) they might see that as control (It would be nice if they would consult with me wouldn't it.)

Otherwise I might be downing tools and walking out the door in a few weeks time.

northernladuk
9th March 2017, 13:33
It's the clients risk and the clients call. Appealing and asking them to change it to suit you exposes them so is unlikely to have much traction. DaveB has told you what to do.

NetContractor
9th March 2017, 13:37
It's the clients risk and the clients call. Appealing and asking them to change it to suit you exposes them so is unlikely to have much traction. DaveB has told you what to do.

I understand that, and would not expect them to "change" their mind, however because the person making this call is removed from the project, it is feasible that they will make an erroneous assumption based on my chosen work patterns. The "tool" can be tricky that way.

Walking out, is not the best advice. Sometimes it is the only option, but it certainly is not the most responsible decision if one cares about their client, project, and career. I am trying to exhaust my other options before making that call...although I have made those in my office aware of the state of play should the verdict be delivered.

BoredBloke
9th March 2017, 13:42
I understand that, and would not expect them to "change" their mind, however because the person making this call is removed from the project, it is feasible that they will make an erroneous assumption based on my chosen work patterns. The "tool" can be tricky that way.

Walking out, is not the best advice. Sometimes it is the only option, but it certainly is not the most responsible decision if one cares about their client, project, and career. I am trying to exhaust my other options before making that call...although I have made those in my office aware of the state of play should the verdict be delivered.

But it's not a bad choice if you care about your bank balance and the prospect of being hit with retrospective taxes

NetContractor
9th March 2017, 13:49
But it's not a bad choice if you care about your bank balance and the prospect of being hit with retrospective taxes

No its not. And it very well might be the only one. and time is running out. I understand all of that.

Bloody Tories! Sorry I voted for you!

northernladuk
9th March 2017, 13:50
But it's not a bad choice if you care about your bank balance and the prospect of being hit with retrospective taxes

This...

And the 24 month rule kicking in :D

eek
9th March 2017, 13:52
No its not. And it very well might be the only one. and time is running out. I understand all of that.

Bloody Tories! Sorry I voted for you!

You know that if you are deemed inside all payments made after April 6th (note that is invoice payments NOT work done) have to have the tax deducted first.

The time to be deciding whether to stay or not is far closer than you think. Depending on your required notice period and payment terms it may already have past.

NetContractor
9th March 2017, 13:56
You know that if you are deemed inside all payments made after April 6th (note that is invoice payments NOT work done) have to have the tax deducted first.

The time to be deciding whether to stay or not is far closer than you think. Depending on your required notice period and payment terms it may already have past.

My agency has told me (in writing) that they will pay invoices before the 6th. I have informed them (also in writing), and the client, that I will be leaving at the end of March if their HR deliver an undesirable (and incorrect) conclusion.

BigRed
9th March 2017, 14:01
So you are saying that your contract wording puts you outside but your working practices to date put you inside because it was more convenient.

Working practices beats paperwork.

NetContractor
9th March 2017, 14:07
So you are saying that your contract wording puts you outside but your working practices to date put you inside because it was more convenient.

Working practices beats paperwork.

Not at all. I am saying my contract AND working practices put me OUTSIDE. HOWEVER, to someone who sees me working regular hours, and does not ask the specifics they may make an assumption that those regular hours are because I am controlled to do so. This would be an incorrect assumption. Just because I choose to work normal hours on client site does not mean that they enforce me to do so.

I have never sent in a substitute, but if I need to prove my contractual terms I WILL do so. But I would rather not. That is MY choice, not the client, and that is a major difference.

DotasScandal
9th March 2017, 14:08
So you are saying that your contract wording puts you outside but your working practices to date put you inside because it was more convenient

He's saying his working practices have been documented by HR bods without a clue about his actual working practices.

NetContractor
9th March 2017, 14:31
What a mess.

My agency, and the client are still none the wiser. The Clients HR department has not even made the call one way or the other yet.

Good news is that all invoices submitted on Friday March 31st are getting paid on the day...I have never encountered an accommodating agency, but I guess it is less paperwork for them as well.

I have made the agency aware that, should the client decide the contract is within IR35, I will not be available for work from 1st April. If they want a notice period, they are welcome to it, but as I am not controlled, I do not have to give notice or days which I am unavailable, and that will be every day after 1st April. :)

Like I said...What a mess!

northernladuk
9th March 2017, 14:44
I have made the agency aware that, should the client decide the contract is within IR35, I will not be available for work from 1st April.

Hang on... So you are going to breach contract if you don't get the answer you want? Will your notice period mean you'll still technically be in contract in to the new year? You are controlled by your contract and obligations. If a notice is required you have to give it. It's nothing to do with being contolled, it's a contractual clause. Being unavailable during notice is still breach.

I have to be honest... I'm not sure the client is the biggest problem here.


Like I said...What a mess!

Totally helped by your poor attitude I am sure.

fidot
9th March 2017, 14:52
You could assist HR by sending them your answers to the questions and asking them to discuss any that they may see differently.

You need to be proactive imho

NetContractor
9th March 2017, 14:55
Hang on... So you are going to breach contract if you don't get the answer you want? Will your notice period mean you'll still technically be in contract in to the new year? You are controlled by your contract and obligations. If a notice is required you have to give it. It's nothing to do with being contolled, it's a contractual clause. Being unavailable during notice is still breach.

I have to be honest... I'm not sure the client is the biggest problem here.

Firstly, its not a breach of contract. I accept the contract, however I have been pressing the agency for a decision from the client for weeks. I only realized this client fell under public sector rules 3 weeks ago, as the definition of public sector is not just government. I have made the agency aware that I would be leaving the contract if I was incorrectly forced inside IR35. As an option I will increase my rate accordingly and accept it. However, the client, it would appear has been dragging their heels on making a decision. So while it is not pleasant to take a 3 week holiday at short notice, up to the end of the contractual period, it is perfectly legal. And if the client isn't happy with it, then they have the option of either accepting my rate increase, or they should have made their position known sooner.



Totally helped by your poor attitude I am sure.

I disagree. I have a very good attitude towards my client. I do not want to leave a contract; I just want to get the job done, but losing 20% because of a decision from someone who isn't really aware of the work practices of the contract, but is sat in a remote office somewhere pushing buttons, isn't really an option (that I think most of us would want to accept). I have been a contractor for a long time...15 years, and I have generally maintained a good relationship with past clients because I work hard to ensure that their in house staff are up to speed before I leave.

This situation however, is out of my hands and beyond my control....I dont like that!

NetContractor
9th March 2017, 14:57
You could assist HR by sending them your answers to the questions and asking them to discuss any that they may see differently.

You need to be proactive imho

I would do that; if someone would tell me who HR are. BUT! you have given me an idea. I will send a transcript of the result to everyone I DO have contact with and hopefully it will filter down.

Good advice. THanks.

SlipTheJab
9th March 2017, 15:03
I would do that; if someone would tell me who HR are. BUT! you have given me an idea. I will send a transcript of the result to everyone I DO have contact with and hopefully it will filter down.

Good advice. THanks.

But even if you don't work your notice you will still have to give it (and not turn up?) ergo you'll still be bound by the contact you signed which if it takes you past the cutoff date means you're screwed.

northernladuk
9th March 2017, 15:13
Firstly, its not a breach of contract.

You intend to leave the contract early so taking holiday in notice to achieve that will be seen as breach. It might be legal to the letter but the intention is very clear.


I I only realized this client fell under public sector rules 3 weeks ago, as the definition of public sector is not just government.

3 weeks ago? Where have you been? Nice to see you understand your clients lol....


I have made the agency aware that I would be leaving the contract if I was incorrectly forced inside IR35.
It's their decision not yours. In your opinion it's wrong but it's their decision. Re-align your thinking and you might not get so upset about it. It's quite possible the put you inside as they had no intention of honouring RoS or other clauses... so you were technically inside already. You are gonna have to get off your high horse I am afraid.



However, the client, it would appear has been dragging their heels on making a decision. So while it is not pleasant to take a 3 week holiday at short notice, up to the end of the contractual period, it is perfectly legal.

I don't agree but eitherway, good luck getting any money you are owed.


I have a very good attitude towards my client.
That's why you didn't know they were PS?.. Just kidding...


This situation however, is out of my hands and beyond my control....I dont like that!

So we see LOL.....

If you put us much effort and passion in to finding a new gig you could move in to a nice new shiney gig and be happy again very soon.

You can claim expenses again as well BTW.

NetContractor
9th March 2017, 15:24
I didn't know it was public sector, because they are NOT public sector. But apparently, for the purposes of the legislation it has something to do with the freedom of information and not just PS. The client is Private Sector, even according to everyone who works here, but fall under Freedom of Information, and therefore the legislation....or something like that.

The rest of the replies are much of a muchness...I'll wait and get a response from them and deal with it them. In the mean time I have been through "the tool" and sent my answers to the agency and the Project Manager.

Incidentally, which version of the tool is the live one? I found a beta version and more complicated version. One returned "self employed" and the other returned "Legislation does not apply"

bobspud
9th March 2017, 15:27
This...

And the 24 month rule kicking in :D

It's better than that. HMRC have told the departments to let them know about any contractor that walks out over this to avoid the problem...

Going/staying is probably going to get you exactly the same result...

DotasScandal
9th March 2017, 15:30
I disagree. I have a very good attitude towards my client. (...)

Don't feel like you have to defend yourself.
You are at CUK, home of judgemental, holier-than-thou contractor "friends", always there to see to point out the straw in your eye.
Don't sweat it

northernladuk
9th March 2017, 15:30
I didn't know it was public sector, because they are NOT public sector. But apparently, for the purposes of the legislation it has something to do with the freedom of information and not just PS. The client is Private Sector, even according to everyone who works here, but fall under Freedom of Information, and therefore the legislation....or something like that.

Your income, contract, legal position and risk of retrospective action are all on the line... and it's 'something like that'?


The rest of the replies are much of a muchness...I'll wait and get a response from them and deal with it them. In the mean time I have been through "the tool" and sent my answers based on my opinion of the contract and engagement to the agency and the Project Manager.

FTFY

NetContractor
9th March 2017, 15:30
It's better than that. HMRC have told the departments to let them know about any contractor that walks out over this to avoid the problem...



Where did you get that information from?

SueEllen
9th March 2017, 15:47
I didn't know it was public sector, because they are NOT public sector. But apparently, for the purposes of the legislation it has something to do with the freedom of information and not just PS. The client is Private Sector, even according to everyone who works here, but fall under Freedom of Information, and therefore the legislation....or something like that.

It was reported last summer on this forum that these changes were in the pipeline. We then had to work out which departments were in scope and while this took some months we knew in February before the tool came out. So you moaning my client is not public sector gets very little sympathy on here.



The rest of the replies are much of a muchness...I'll wait and get a response from them and deal with it them. In the mean time I have been through "the tool" and sent my answers to the agency and the Project Manager.

Incidentally, which version of the tool is the live one? I found a beta version and more complicated version. One returned "self employed" and the other returned "Legislation does not apply"

Gov.UK sites stay in Beta for a while, while they tweak the site. So use the latest one you can find and print out your answers with a date stamp.

eek
9th March 2017, 15:59
It's better than that. HMRC have told the departments to let them know about any contractor that walks out over this to avoid the problem...

Going/staying is probably going to get you exactly the same result...

Continuing to work in April in a contract deemed inside IR35 is going to be far harder to defend than a decision to leave in March due to you believing the contract was outside with the end client thinking it was inside.

In the former case you are implicitly agreeing that the inside IR35 decision may be valid, in the latter case you are explicitly disagreeing that the contract was inside..

Granted they may both end up with HMRC knocking on your door but I think the latter option is far more defendable...

eek
9th March 2017, 16:04
Don't feel like you have to defend yourself.
You are at CUK, home of judgemental, holier-than-thou contractor "friends", always there to see to point out the straw in your eye.
Don't sweat it

The issue is that the OP has a fundamental misunderstanding of how the new world works. In the public sector the decision is no longer one made by the individual contractor but is made by the end customer (the public sector department / nuclear power station / university)....

That decision may not be one that management lets a local manager decide and it may be being done on a global basis by say the HR department. and if its done on a global basis and the resultant answer is delivered as a departmental policy there is little a contractor or local manager will be able to do about it.

NetContractor
9th March 2017, 16:06
It was reported last summer on this forum that these changes were in the pipeline. We then had to work out which departments were in scope and while this took some months we knew in February before the tool came out. So you moaning my client is not public sector gets very little sympathy on here.



I'm not moaning. And my client is not public sector; the agent says it, and the client says it. But they are a university and come under freedom of information which makes the rules apply.

Geez...I came on here for a bit of information about appealing. Ever do something and end up sorry you ever bothered.

eek
9th March 2017, 16:06
I didn't know it was public sector, because they are NOT public sector. But apparently, for the purposes of the legislation it has something to do with the freedom of information and not just PS. The client is Private Sector, even according to everyone who works here, but fall under Freedom of Information, and therefore the legislation....or something like that.

The rest of the replies are much of a muchness...I'll wait and get a response from them and deal with it them. In the mean time I have been through "the tool" and sent my answers to the agency and the Project Manager.

Incidentally, which version of the tool is the live one? I found a beta version and more complicated version. One returned "self employed" and the other returned "Legislation does not apply"

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-employment-status-for-tax is the correct tool. It will be marked as Beta for months as that is how the gov.uk site works for new websites (I worked on one that was marked as beta for 12 months)...

MrMarkyMark
9th March 2017, 16:08
Continuing to work in April in a contract deemed inside IR35 is going to be far harder to defend than a decision to leave in March due to you believing the contract was outside with the end client thinking it was inside.

In the former case you are implicitly agreeing that the inside IR35 decision may be valid, in the latter case you are explicitly disagreeing that the contract was inside..

Granted they may both end up with HMRC knocking on your door but I think the latter option is far more defendable...

Interesting point, you are, but with the caveat that you have to fight your case, not roll over and sign an inside contract as an alternative.

eek
9th March 2017, 16:20
Interesting point, you are, but with the caveat that you have to fight your case, not roll over and sign an inside contract as an alternative.

The idea that HMRC come after all people that leave is a very new addition and one that I can't see them doing. If its a money grab operation (as I suspect any retrospective attack would be), going after people who have left isn't going to get HMRC any easy money its just going to give them a lot of tribunals to fight.....

northernladuk
9th March 2017, 16:22
I'm not moaning. And my client is not public sector; the agent says it, and the client says it. But they are a university and come under freedom of information which makes the rules apply..

This is very worrying. There are plenty of articles aimed at Universities and colleges directly. Some of the articles are on Universities pages...

Off payroll workers – significant changes in compliance responsibilities - HE Matters People Special Spring 2016 - PwC UK (http://www.pwc.co.uk/industries/government-public-sector/education/he-matters/people-special-2016/off-payroll-workers-significant-changes-in-compliance-responsibilities.html)

https://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/finance/news/off-payrollworkerschangestotaxlegislation/

IPSE have specifically pointed it out as well as far back as May last year.

https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/ir35-public-sector-proposed-government-changes


What constitutes a public sector body?

Any organisation that is legally required to respond to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. Examples given are on page 12:

Government departments, executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies
NHS
Police and fire authorities
Local authorities
Devolved administrations
Educational establishments including universities
BBC, Channel 4
Bank of England

Where you say 'the client says it'.. did they say they weren't PS but we know the legislation will apply to us or did they give you the impression that the weren't PS and it wouldn't apply. Either way if there had been any doubt whatsoever a couple of seconds on google could have clarified for you.

MrMarkyMark
9th March 2017, 16:23
The idea that HMRC come after all people that leave is a very new addition and one that I can't see them doing. If its a money grab operation (as I suspect any retrospective attack would be), going after people who have left isn't going to get HMRC any easy money its just going to give them a lot of tribunals to fight.....

Yep and if "you" (I meant avid readers, LOL) have a good memory things seemed to be panning out pretty much as per previous discussions.

NetContractor
9th March 2017, 16:49
This is very worrying. There are plenty of articles aimed at Universities and colleges directly. Some of the articles are on Universities pages...

Off payroll workers – significant changes in compliance responsibilities - HE Matters People Special Spring 2016 - PwC UK (http://www.pwc.co.uk/industries/government-public-sector/education/he-matters/people-special-2016/off-payroll-workers-significant-changes-in-compliance-responsibilities.html)

https://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/finance/news/off-payrollworkerschangestotaxlegislation/

IPSE have specifically pointed it out as well as far back as May last year.

https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/ir35-public-sector-proposed-government-changes



Where you say 'the client says it'.. did they say they weren't PS but we know the legislation will apply to us or did they give you the impression that the weren't PS and it wouldn't apply. Either way if there had been any doubt whatsoever a couple of seconds on google could have clarified for you.

Look, if I truly thought the client was NOT PS, why would I pay attention to this legislation. I have been contracting for 15 years; this is my longest contract, and is currently over 2 years. I saw this legislation coming into force, but just assumed it was Public Sector (as I knew it) (ie. Government). As I have only ever had 1 government role (and hated it) I never thought it affected me.

I'm not an idiot. However the first I knew this was an issue was when the agency called to "discuss the changes" about 3 weeks ago. I even discussed it with the contacts I have at the client site. Being a contractor, my contact with the client employees is very limited; I am the only developer/contractor on a team of 3. We work in a small office completely isolated, so there is no one else to provide an opinion. The other 2 people on the team are project manager and senior user and they have no idea what this legislation even is; and why would they as it is nothing to do with them. They are both of the opinion that universities are private sector, and never had reason to doubt it.

I really am sorry I posted anything on this forum, and won't be doing so again. There are a few people who seem to provide valuable, intellectual, and appreciated information. And others who just seem to judge, which is silly, because anyone in a PS contract staring down this particular barrel would look for any way to limit their liability, unless of course they are a far left liberal who thinks everyone should be the same regardless of intellect, ability, experience, or how hard you work.

Anyway....I think I got the answer I was looking for. My original query is resolved. thanks.

DotasScandal
9th March 2017, 17:29
The idea that HMRC come after all people that leave is a very new addition and one that I can't see them doing. If its a money grab operation (as I suspect any retrospective attack would be), going after people who have left isn't going to get HMRC any easy money its just going to give them a lot of tribunals to fight.....

Unless they turn the tables on "people" again, and extend the principle of APNs to IR35 disputes? No tribunal needed, onus on the contractor to "prove" status. Money in. Problem solved.
For now they will be building lists. To be used at a later time.

You read it here first.

eek
9th March 2017, 17:43
Unless they turn the tables on "people" again, and extend the principle of APNs to IR35 disputes? No tribunal needed, onus on the contractor to "prove" status. Money in. Problem solved.
For now they will be building lists. To be used at a later time.

You read it here first.

Not quite because with schemes you had 300+ members using an identical payment method and multiple schemes using identical versions of that payment method. Hence once one person on one scheme was found to be in the "wrong" the other scheme members and the other similar schemes have a problem.

Until April IR35 was dependent on how an individual person worked on an individual project / client site. And the way I work with a client is different from how someone else works so each case is by definition individual and they cannot easily group them together....

However, and we have stated this elsewhere so you are not the first to say it - if HMRC find a client / agency with multiple people listed as outside when they are not HMRC will in the first case go after the agency for the money owed. If that agency no longer exists its possible that they may then go against each individual contractor...

And if you haven't guessed why I now say that you want a big agency if you get an outside IR35 Public sector role - the paragraph should give you the explanation...

DotasScandal
9th March 2017, 17:56
Not quite because with schemes you had 300+ members using an identical payment method and multiple schemes using identical versions of that payment method. Hence once one person on one scheme was found to be in the "wrong" the other scheme members and the other similar schemes have a problem

The above statement betrays that you know little about how APNs work.
To date, only one contractor, of one (rather exotic) "scheme", has been found to be "in the wrong" (Mr. Boyle).
No other schemes used by contractors nor individual contractors have been found to be "in the wrong".
Well, guess what? they've been carpet-bombed with APNs regardless.
Whether there are 10 schemes with 1000 users each or 10000 schemes with one user each is completely irrelevant.
That is because APNs are issued not based on any "right or wrong", but solely based on declaration of participation in an arrangement previously registered with HMRC (sometimes 10-12 years before the APN was issued - see DOTAS system).
So, this system is perfectly transposable to contractors and PSCs, and would require only minor tweaks (e.g. using the aforementioned list rather than DOTAS declarations to target relevant individuals).
How it could work? They'll see your name on the list, send you an non-appealable demand for a "retrospective payment on account" for all the years you've been contracting, and leave it to you to challenge it through the courts (if you have any funds left to pay barrister and court fees).
The onus is on you (and you better believe HMRC will do everything to stall proceedings so it never gets to court)
Not that I want to give them ideas or anything. But I'm sure they're working on it.

northernladuk
9th March 2017, 18:08
I am the only developer/contractor on a team of 3. We work in a small office completely isolated, so there is no one else to provide an opinion. The other 2 people on the team are project manager and senior user and they have no idea what this legislation even is; and why would they as it is nothing to do with them. They are both of the opinion that universities are private sector, and never had reason to doubt it.

Am not having a go, just discussing it.. But it's no wonder no one is coming back to you. Sounds like they've forgotten you. That said 2 years (and many to come I expect) based on that setup. It's going to be extremely difficult to look like any but part and parcel and therefore inside? That sounds like a bum on a seat if I've ever seen one. If it wasn't you doing it it would be a permie. After two years it has to be an enduring role. I think you're only option is to leave... gracefully. That is a disaster waiting to happen IMO.

eek
9th March 2017, 18:08
Gibberish with massive leaps in imagination not backed up with any logic or facts as to what might be different between DOTAS scheme users and the outside world.

Sorry, but you are getting very, very boring with your combination of woe is me and HMRC will extend the pain I'm getting due to personal stupidity / greed to absolutely everyone else.... I'm going to put you on ignore as I suspect virtually everyone else already has done...

northernladuk
9th March 2017, 18:11
Sorry, but you are getting very, very boring with your combination of woe is me and HMRC will extend the pain

Got to agree with this.

DotasScandal
9th March 2017, 18:15
Sorry, but you are getting very, very boring with your combination of woe is me and HMRC will extend the pain I'm getting due to personal stupidity / greed to absolutely everyone else.... I'm going to put you on ignore as I suspect virtually everyone else already has done...

The purpose here was not to entertain you, but to educate you on a topic that might matter to you down the line.
And If you think it's a massive leap of imagination...1/ you are lacking imagination 2/ you have not been paying attention to HMRC's actions between 2013 and 2017.
Judgements on stupidity / intelligence / greed are irrelevant to the point.

DotasScandal
9th March 2017, 18:16
Got to agree with this.

Let's revisit this in 2 years' time.

northernladuk
9th March 2017, 18:29
Let's revisit this in 2 years' time.

Feel free. But in the right thread in the right part of the forum.