Pauperised

263 posts

Pauperised

Pauperised

@pauperised

Engineer, Pilot, Sailor, Family man who simply cannot believe the injustice of the Loan Charge

Scotland, United Kingdom Katılım Şubat 2019
349 Takip Edilen300 Takipçiler
Pauperised
Pauperised@pauperised·
@PedantPedro @nobigfish @emily4MK The tax on promoters’ fees were neither in the Loan Charge nor in previous settlement offers…because fundamentally this money went to the promoters and it is they who should pay the tax. Why should we pay someone else’s tax bill? It’s completely outrageous.
English
3
12
35
1.1K
Pauperised
Pauperised@pauperised·
What really concerns me is how HMT/HMRC have walked all over it and altered the T&Cs with such ease. It makes a complete mockery of any report/ review etc etc, independent or not. I believe very few will settle as a result.
Gordon Berry@wealthagent

It seems very clear that the outcome of the McCann #loancharge 'Review' was agreed at the outset and the Reviewer would know his job was to help HMRC get more cash. It had nothing to do with "Fairness for all taxpayers".

English
2
6
15
507
Pauperised
Pauperised@pauperised·
@wealthagent @itcontracting What I mean is that, in their new definition of LC, APN amounts should be deducted prior to and not be subjected to the interest from 31/01/20 to Nov 25. Currently I believe they will be.
English
0
0
0
62
Gordon Berry
Gordon Berry@wealthagent·
@pauperised @itcontracting APNs can be set-off on settlement, so not double-taxed. It would have to be an unusual set of circumstances for the Promoter fee differential to outweigh the unstacking of loans plus the interest & IHT discounts!
English
1
0
0
103
ContractorUK
ContractorUK@itcontracting·
Loan Charge 2025: settlement — or structural barrier? The settlement was designed to encourage agreement. The Technical Note may complicate that aim. Graham Webber, co-founder and director of tax at WTT Group, breaks down what HMRC’s Technical Note changes — and how it may influence decisions on settlement. contractoruk.com/news/blocking-…
ContractorUK tweet media
English
6
22
20
1.8K
Pauperised
Pauperised@pauperised·
@wealthagent @itcontracting For some higher earners the aggregate of increases, year by year, of the promoter’s fees exceeds the £70k benefit. Also, prepaid APNs are being double taxed.
English
1
0
0
124
Gordon Berry
Gordon Berry@wealthagent·
@pauperised @itcontracting There is lots wrong with the HMRC interpretation of the McCann settlement, but how can you possibly claim that the settlement opportunity is now costing more than settling the #loancharge?
English
1
0
0
154
Pauperised
Pauperised@pauperised·
They would also have to admit they made mistakes ( very few people are mature enough to do this), admit 10 people died for no reason, pay enormous concomitant compensations, reverse settlements etc.
WrathOfMyBombast 🇺🇦@Stephen41792571

@DanNeidle As you can probably guess, the reason the Gov (i.e. HMT & HMRC) won't act,is that it will highlight the complete lack of action taken against #LoanCharge promoters for the last 20 years. @loanchargeAPPG @jamesmurray_ldn

English
0
8
15
368
Pauperised retweetledi
UKRetroTax
UKRetroTax@RetroTaxUK·
@Jesse_Norman You will only be remembered for the #LoanChargeScandal and the 10 #LoanChargeSuicides. You were complicit in the cover up of #HMRC incompetence; and don't even have plausible deniability because you were told over and over what was happening.
English
1
11
22
182
Pauperised
Pauperised@pauperised·
Please also remember @TanDhesi @loanchargeAPPG @keithmgordon that this so-called discretion is not only highly questionable, but it is being used retrospectively. It’s one thing using it at the correct time, it’s quite another to try and use it now for many years previously.
Valeria@MissKirtiShukla

@keithmgordon Pls @TanDhesi @loanchargeAPPG read this tweet wrt HMRC sending individuals s684 for pre-2010 tax years which we out of scope of the #LoanCharge post the SAM report. I have a684 opening up 3 years pre cutting off of #LoanCharge

English
1
20
28
821
Pauperised retweetledi
🐟 @nobigfish
🐟 @nobigfish@nobigfish·
If you're affected by or fighting #LoanCharge give this post a like & retweet so people can identify your Twitter profile then revisit this post, I'll post it again as well, then follow everybody who has liked it. We need to build a network. Stronger together #LoanChargeScandal
🐟 @nobigfish tweet media
English
0
147
191
8.6K
Pauperised
Pauperised@pauperised·
Indeed, I also scoffed at the “significant risk” as they did not put a penny of their own money into it! I also could not believe that Laura K did not come back on that- she could easily have made Barrowman look even more pathetic.
Tootiepie@toootiepie

@TheNewEuropean Barrowman stated £60m was a reasonable return on the £200m contract, given significant risk. I cant fathom how there is any risk, when you set up a company to take advantage of the VIP lane opp, and the government will always going to pay. The pair are repugnant.

English
0
0
1
56
Pauperised
Pauperised@pauperised·
“We need to do more” says @lucyfrazermp . Tories have lost probably 150k voters due to @loanchargeAPPG victims. ( 50k victims plus friends & families). May I respectfully say you @lucyfrazermp had every chance to look into and sort this debacle properly, but you did not bother.
English
6
26
55
980
Pauperised
Pauperised@pauperised·
Great logical question and one that HMRC would be extremely hard pushed to answer.
Osita Mba@DrOsitaMba

@IanTodd85332631 @HMRCgovuk If APNs can be used to require taxpayers who have used schemes disclosed under DOTAS to pay tax on account based on HMRC’s view without a court decision, why can’t HMRC decide whether the schemes are effective or not in their view before the promoters sell them to the taxpayers?

English
0
1
5
1.2K
Pauperised retweetledi
Britain People
Britain People@Britain_People·
MATT HANCOCK 🔴COST OF GREED CRISIS Hancock wants £10,000 for a single day's work. The state pension is £8,122 for an entire year. RETWEET if this is morally wrong.
Britain People tweet media
English
341
10.5K
9.7K
465.3K
Pauperised
Pauperised@pauperised·
@Jesse_Norman @Jesse_Norman This is a thoughtful, well observed and well argued letter. So how come you can be rational and demonstrate some leadership here, yet take a perverse and illogical view of the retrospective #loancharge ? The #loancharge breaks the rule of law, and you know it.
English
0
2
8
0
Pauperised retweetledi
Jesse Norman
Jesse Norman@Jesse_Norman·
I have supported Boris Johnson for 15 years, for the London Mayoralty and for PM. Very sadly, I have written to him to say I can no longer do so, for the reasons set out below.
Jesse Norman tweet mediaJesse Norman tweet media
English
3.9K
6K
28.7K
0
Pauperised
Pauperised@pauperised·
Indeed. What is the point in having any Tax Law if HMRC have a wide ranging discretion that can be used prospectively and retrospectively? It’s a ridiculous concept open to massive abuse.
Philbert@3ngland3xpects

@ArmadilloSupprt HOW THE FUCK CAN ANY TRIBUNAL RULE THAT HMRC HAVE POWERS TO APPLY A DISCRETION 10 YEARS AFTER THE FACT BASED ON HMRC UNPUBLISHED MANUAL AND FOR A PURPOSE NOT INTENDED AND NEVER PREVIOUSLY USED? JUDICIAL MALFEASANCE! HM GOV AGAIN FUCKING WITH THE LAW!

English
0
14
25
0