• 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!

PM FAO AtW

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

    #11
    This is a tough one AtW, for me it has much wider ramifications and much wider layers of unevenness in our political and taxation systems as I mentioned in the other other thread.

    When the scheme users signed up to these schemes some may well have been aware that what they were doing was a bit dodgy but two things come into play as well - 1) The stupidity of the public at large, 2) The hard sales approach of the scheme operators.

    When HRMC chose to introduce retrospective legislation to target the scheme users this crossed a line IMO, they went after the small man rather than those who got very rich from running these schemes.

    HMRC could, and should, have acted quicker to close the schemes down and call on the Government to sort legislation so that these schemes could not continue to operate. They let them ride for years and years and many people were suckered in to using them.

    The other massive disparity for me are the big businesses who continue to get away with paying jack tulip in relation to their turn over and profits by employing the same sort of tactics.

    Yes, the HMRC tide is turning but my main point of upset here is that they should have acted sooner, they should have acted like honourable, responsible people, identified the problem and closed it off, not let the situation fester and let the stupid public get sucked into these schemes. They knew the problem was there and the responsible thing to do would have been to honour what was legal at the time, legislate to stop it happening again and move on.

    Comment


      #12
      The montpelier scheme opened in 2000 and was known to HMRC in 2001. HMRC did nothing until 2008.

      There is another really important point that have have made known to a couple of posters privately, however sadly has to be left private until NTRT outcome is known.

      I wish to say sorry to AtW for my comments on this and the other thread. I will post no more.

      Comment


        #13
        HMRC should have acted sooner, yes, but that does not get off the hook those who "avoided" tax - they are very lucky that it's not classed as evasion, which really it should be and the only reason it's not is because required standard of proof is much higher in criminal court.

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
          I wish to say sorry to AtW for my comments on this and the other thread. I will post no more.
          Apology accepted Captain Brillo...

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by administrator View Post
            The other massive disparity for me are the big businesses who continue to get away with paying jack tulip in relation to their turn over and profits by employing the same sort of tactics.
            Yep they do, and it's bad, but it was obvious that as soon as those tactics gone closer to the ground it created risk to much bigger tax base to be eroded - ultimately taxes are paid by people anyway, so if big businesses that provides many jobs dodge taxes for £20 bln then it's small dent in £600 bln budget. It's bad obviously, but also harder to deal with because multinationals got legit reasons to be in many countries, unlike somebody who is tax resident in UK but uses offshore to invoice.

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by AtW View Post
              HMRC should have acted sooner, yes, but that does not get off the hook those who "avoided" tax - they are very lucky that it's not classed as evasion, which really it should be and the only reason it's not is because required standard of proof is much higher in criminal court.
              But when you are told by a scheme promoter that it is all above board, backed by a QC etc etc, how many of them still thought it was dodgy? It is the small man caught up in this and the scheme providers are off scot-free. This is HMRC using it's significant bully-boy tactics on people unable to defend themselves who have been caught up in this while big corps who knowingly do this are able to carry on. The whole thing sucks bit fat pole and HMRC should never have let it get to this stage let alone harassed individuals as badly as they have done. They developer a chip on their shoulder about the whole thing and have acted disgracefully.

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by administrator View Post
                But when you are told by a scheme promoter that it is all above board, backed by a QC etc etc, how many of them still thought it was dodgy?
                Should have been 100%. It was obvious from the proposition - instead of paying 40% tax they'd pay 0 (and 10% (!) to promoter, which is the pointer in itself to dodgyness).

                Originally posted by administrator View Post
                It is the small man caught up in this and the scheme providers are off scot-free. This is HMRC using it's significant bully-boy tactics on people unable to defend themselves who have been caught up in this while big corps who knowingly do this are able to carry on. The whole thing sucks bit fat pole and HMRC should never have let it get to this stage let alone harassed individuals as badly as they have done. They developer a chip on their shoulder about the whole thing and have acted disgracefully.
                When police is too late to catch bank robbers when they are exiting bank, does not make it wrong for police to catch them at later stage.

                Comment


                  #18
                  What's really annoying is that many of those who took part in these schemes blame everybody - HMRC, posters on here who don't say what they like, media, Govt, MPs, everybody apart from themselves AND those who sucked them into this thing. Lots of lawsuits against Govt and nothing for misseling or negligence against providers??? Crazy.

                  Oh no those providers live offshore, oh no they closed their Ltds, oh no we can't get anything - but fine to go against HMRC with infinite financial resources and ability to change law.

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by administrator View Post
                    This is a tough one AtW, for me it has much wider ramifications and much wider layers of unevenness in our political and taxation systems as I mentioned in the other other thread.

                    When the scheme users signed up to these schemes some may well have been aware that what they were doing was a bit dodgy but two things come into play as well - 1) The stupidity of the public at large, 2) The hard sales approach of the scheme operators.

                    When HRMC chose to introduce retrospective legislation to target the scheme users this crossed a line IMO, they went after the small man rather than those who got very rich from running these schemes.

                    HMRC could, and should, have acted quicker to close the schemes down and call on the Government to sort legislation so that these schemes could not continue to operate. They let them ride for years and years and many people were suckered in to using them.

                    The other massive disparity for me are the big businesses who continue to get away with paying jack tulip in relation to their turn over and profits by employing the same sort of tactics.

                    Yes, the HMRC tide is turning but my main point of upset here is that they should have acted sooner, they should have acted like honourable, responsible people, identified the problem and closed it off, not let the situation fester and let the stupid public get sucked into these schemes. They knew the problem was there and the responsible thing to do would have been to honour what was legal at the time, legislate to stop it happening again and move on.
                    Why should HMRC behave as honourable, responsible people? They have behaved legally.

                    We are always lectured by the NTRT mob that it is the law that matters in taxation, not morality.

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by northernladyuk View Post
                      Why should HMRC behave as honourable, responsible people? They have behaved legally.

                      We are always lectured by the NTRT mob that it is the law that matters in taxation, not morality.
                      But when you change laws and apply then retrospectively then it has the potential to knock on to other areas of life. I know you have fecked off to another country but does not that make a little sad about what is considered the rule of law?

                      I believe everyone, HMRC included, should behave honourably - as a lady of the night I am sure even you have your own code of honour. In the case of a governing body like HMRC I feel they should have more honour than most.

                      You could say Pol Pot behaved legally. Supporting legality that is morally wrong is not a good trait to my way of thinking.

                      I don't know about lecturing from any mob, I am speaking on a human level. To me the behaviour of HMRC in this matter has been repugnant.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X