Saturday, 13 November 2010

Time to Cough Up

Dear HMRC,

Someone has contacted me and requested clarification on smoking. Are you planning to increase the duty of cigarettes depending on size?
Apparantly, HMRC will from January 2011 treat any cigarette longer than 8cm (excluding the tip) as a separate cigarette and in a further crackdown, any cigarette which is a further 3cm above the 8cm, will be treated as a third cigarette. Meaning any cigarette 12cm or longer will be treated as three cigarettes, not one. A normal cigarette excluding the tip is 6cm in length.

you fucking what? - which bean counting figure fucker conjured up this shite?

Unfortunately, as my reader currently smokes 30-40 a day, they cannot afford to pay twice or sometimes three times as much and are making plans to take regular trips to Amsterdam in 2011.

I'm no fucking expert but.., do you really want to drive the smoking population out of this country like you have done to the business sector? Will you only be happy when you can see the tumbleweed rolling across the streets? Are you part of Agenda 21's depopulation strategy? I hear that people are even refusing to be buried in the UK now because of your grave digging antics.

You know, if you actually just collected what you are supposed to collect without fucking it up, you wouldn't need to resort to such low life, scum sucking levels of tyrannical behaviour. But hey, fuck them - innit?

Yours sincerely,


Wednesday, 10 November 2010

They're in Cahoots

Yes folks, have a good look at this picture. We are the sheep that have been herded around in whatever direction that HMRC and Kangaroo Courts have seen fit. There are also wolves in sheep's clothing within our pack known as Solictors, Advisors and Barristers. I'm sure some wolves are ok(ish), but overall, you get the general picture.

Great picture stolen from Old Holborn's place.

Monday, 8 November 2010

Extended Verification is Bollocks

The asswipes over at HMRC have been ordered (by the powers that be) that extended verification needs to be executed. Who knows why? Who cares?

In order to protect yourselves, if you haven't already, do the following;

1. Complain about extended or the legal certainty element. Although it is a complete charade and the complaints department is cross protective of itself, it may help to gather these documents.
2. After you reach the end of their shitty complaints procedure, you will be directed to the Adjudicator. Dont expect much from this shambles - the Adjudictor has been recruited by HMRC to check on itself. That's real impartial stuff isn't it?

3. Whilst your complaint is with the Adjudicator, contact your local MP and ask for their help with regards to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. They will send you a form, or write to HMRC, or both.

4. Once the Adjudicator does the cross-protecting thing and sticks up for HMRC with no real argument, you can then take your case to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

At the end of it all - I bet you get a decision?

Friday, 5 November 2010

Bernadette Kenny leaving HMRC

PAYE misChief Bernadette Kenny is leaving HMRC.

An HMRC spokesman said: "Bernadette Kenny, director general personal tax, is leaving HMRC at the end of January after 5 years with the department. "Bernadette who has been a civil servant for 30 years, has decided that she would like to pursue other career opportunities.

Translation:- Bernadette Kenny is beyond useless and has fantastically failed in her job affecting over 6 million people which must be a record. She therefore needs to consider going into something else. Let's all keep an eye on which new authority will recruit her at the taxpayer's expense.

For the sake of the British Taxpayers and the greater good, she needs to just go home and stay there, making whatever mistakes she wants in her own kitchen.
Incompetent cow.

Article is here

Wednesday, 3 November 2010

HMRC says NO to Legal Certainty

Click on the image to read it. Here is a fantastic example of sheer arrogance and disregard of the law from HMRC.

"HMRC is not able to provide the legal certainty you demand"

You what? I was not aware that there are different degrees or levels of legal certainty? Is the legal certainty requested different to any other? Either HMRC give legal certainty or they do not.

"HMRC must have the freedom to respond quickly to changing scenarios and their right to do so has been granted in law"

Bullshit. What about fairness, justice, rights, proportionality and legal certainty - all of these are missing in HMRC? Where does it say in law that these do not apply?

"HMRC are satisfied that their methods are legal and indeed have been successful where their methods have been challenged in the courts"

By their own admission, companies on extended are not able to challenge their process in the courts because no decision has been reached. (Other than a Judicial Review which we all know, HMRC make decisions on the doorstep). Each case is different with varying points of law and circumstances and HMRC should not be applying this sentence broadly (in this context) where legal certainty has been infringed.

If anyone else has any more examples of breathtaking arrogance from HMRC, then do get in touch so we can expose their contradictions and tyranny. Email me

Tuesday, 2 November 2010

Another Seminar...Same shit, same people, different company name

Oh Yipeee, there is another Seminar being held called "Tactics for Success" by BTG Tax (the same people from Vantis)

Although I would love to attend to see what shit shovelling exercise is now being fed to us, I would prefer to actually shovel real shit instead.

Bottom line:- Since the ruling at the Court of Appeal and during this 'interim' period between that and the Supreme Court, the biased and bigoted Tribunals are working on the balance of probabilities. With developing jurisprudence continuing on (because the law is an actual fucking ass), it would be better to keep your case on a slow burner until some fucking cunt actually applies the rule of law.

There is no point in pleading a case when there is no rule of law and your fate is decided on a balance of probabilities shrouded in opinion with no factual evidence.

Your solicitors and advisors will not tell you this. Seminar details here