• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

IR to pay for pointless inspections?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    IR to pay for pointless inspections?

    Sounds good to me...in fact Id go so far as to say that the IR should be paying for ALL pointless inspections regardless of whether any extra tax revenue is raised or not.

    This I think would certainly stop pointless and baseless actions, like the current Arctic case, from proceeding :rollin

    But then again...Ive said it once before and Ill say it again...the IR should introduce a flat rate tax system that makes it pointless to avoid paying tax because the savings you make wouldnt be worth the effort you go to avoid paying that tax! I know, Im a true visionary :rollin

    Mailman

    #2
    pointless and baseless actions, like the current Arctic case, from proceeding
    Not really a good example. The revenue's view has prevailed at both the commissioners and the high court. As the number of affected companies is large, I would say it is completely the opposite of pointless (from the revenue's point of view, that is).

    Comment


      #3
      I think they should tax the poor. How about reversing all the thresholds so the less you earn the higher percentage you pay? Bet we would be the nost productive country in the world in a few years.

      Random tax rates would be good too, if you got a zero bill one year and owed £200k the next you would never know if tax dodges were worth bothering with or not.

      Comment


        #4
        Not really a good example. The revenue's view has prevailed at both the commissioners and the high court. As the number of affected companies is large, I would say it is completely the opposite of pointless (from the revenue's point of view, that is).
        What I was trying to get at LB is that without the backing of the PCG and lots of donations the Arctic people would have absolutely no way of affording to "fight" against the IR rulings.

        Hence why I believe it should be the IR who foot the entire bill of any "review" regardless of whether extra tax is raised or not.

        Regards

        Mailman

        Comment


          #5
          And here at the international air show we have just finished a very enjoyable display of aerobatic excellence from Pig Airforce!:rolleyes Chocks away Chaps and anyone for bacon.

          Comment

          Working...
          X