Forthcoming General Election - send a message to the Chancellor NOW ...

[webberg]

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]

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]

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]

https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Manag...ing-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I will never vote for the Retro Tax party.

[TykeMerc]

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.