Jump to content

quark2009

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About quark2009

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. That is the problem that the whole industry is involved in it, some are ethical and give the benefit / tax saving fully but some are exploiting conmen. And thats what we have to rectify whether by a precedent case or by legislation. This is absolutely outrageous. Putting a figure on ... its very easy, i am part-qualified accountant and i can see it black and white. It is also quite clear that some Employers deliberately make the payslips look confusing and the majority of people cannot understand what is going on but to me it is very clear. I dont even need to see the calculations i just
  2. that is what they say, but we will see if who is right and who is wrong. this is not like any other contract, and this contract has not been properly negotiated or agreed. and i think suing is exactly what we need to do to these big fat cats, i would love to drag their bums to the court
  3. i heard about this case, i think this is slightly different matter, although related to effectively the same scheme, i think this case is about ... HMRC thinks the scheme run by Reed is claiming tax back for expenses that are not tax-deductible (tax-allowable), and Reed obviously did not like it and appealed, and the judge told Reed to p***s off. i wish the Judge also asked Reed to reimburse the employees . i heard that this happens often with other companies.
  4. Hello Steam, Many thanks for your reply. Lets get the definitions sorted first. This scheme is not the benefit scheme, in other words this is not something like a benefit that a company provides you with, such as a company car, pension or health insurance. That is why I need to sieve through the Tax Law to find the aspects of assets / liabilities Related to the above subject and interestingly enough, (in this case as well), and as it is in usual tax matters, there is no Transfer of Liability, which means that if a certain amount of Tax is underpaid then an employee is
  5. Emmzzi, yes, it is that kind of a scheme, very unethical and very unfair, hence im trying to figure out how to sue these people's bums, there must be a way, if it does not work via a court, maybe MPs can do something about it, to me it is a clear theft !!!
  6. to add in the para #1 above: ... then people would be much more careful and may have chosen to decline such a contract / service , or in this case such a scheme. i need to check Tax Law as well, with particular attention to Asset / Liability aspects , transfer of such, Tax Advisory, related fees, and so on. for those who are looking on this post, please check the previous big post, as this one is just the correction of the previous post. thanks
  7. Steam - thank you for your reply. this case is quite complex and might probably be the first one of its kind if we get to the court, but most likely they will settle outside as the precedent will have massive implications just like PPI did in recent years. So, so lets look at it much closer... if you have a legal background then lets talk about the following issues, please try to look at them as if a Court Judge would: 1. implied terms: in the relationship between Employer and Employee - there is an implied term of Trust. as opposed to a B2B / arm's length transaction. Thu
  8. Hello everyone,thank you for all your replies.Honeybee - im sorry about my post without paragraphs, i did do the paragraphs and tried to edit it many times but your site did not allow it or maybe there was an error. i always use paragraphs and clear structure. will try to repost it here again.
  9. Thank you for your reply SteamPowered. Having read the legal articles and cases that relate to the situation i still think that there is a misrepresentation here or some sort of wrongdoing or fraud. Imagine you go to an old granny who trusts you just because you are her nephew and you promise her to paint her fence , and you do paint it but you use a lot of her paint to paint your own face like x5 times the size. Now, isnt that fraud ? If there hasnt been a precedent, it does not mean there are no problems here. What is your background, im just trying to figure out how much lega
  10. thank you for your reply SteamPowered - you said you are not sure about JSA, therefore i might still have a case here with regards to specifically NI - as for Tax ... and answering your question about Tax Consulting. i just called it consulting because i am trying to analyze the reality of the situation and the relationship, i am trying to see if we have a case here. the reality is that we entered into an agreement with our Employer that (quoting) "Employer will make us better off whilst being on this scheme", so the latter agreement is sort of true (although given JSA and other benefits
  11. hello there. maybe you guys could at least put me into a right direction. my Employer has been running this Travel & Subsistence scheme which allows employees to claim the expenses and pay less tax, thereby saving money to the employee. However, the benefit split is very unfair 15% to the employee only and 85% to the employer. when we entered into the scheme all the employer told us is that we would be better off when on the scheme and it is true that we do earn a little bit more as the tax paid is much less but the employer never negotiated any fees and so as a consumer of such
  12. no, no default has ever been registered there, because after default i think account stops running those red entries, and mine keep continuing. yeah, i agree, it makes sense, because i have made at least an effort to pay a big chunk of it, and am even trying to settle this, so it makes sense if ICO also argues that even Late Payments should be removed because i have been making an effort. and would the Creditor normally uphold ICO advice, and if not, what would i have to do ? many thanks
  13. hi Brigadier, im sorry to ask you that again, im not sure i am getting this right.... the entries with CR agency are not AP, they are currently Late Payments, and it has been like that for past 4 years, although i have been in debt management with APEX. do these fall off after 6 years. many thanks
  14. also, what kind of trouble can the telephone conversation lead to? do you think Natwest would consider my offer, because looks like APEX is just the agent for them, but not the owner of the debt.
  15. thank you very much for your reply. the entry for the last 4 years is actuallly "6" (in red colour, LATE PAYMENTS), but it does not represent a true reflection of an account. it is rather AP. so are you saying that LATE PAYMENTS will not fall off after 6 years. many thanks
×
×
  • Create New...