-
Posts
3,329 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by 1964
-
Listen, I am happy but to suggest that a black man and a caucasian woman must have an obviously black child is embarrassing and I am not apologising for calling it out. It's a comment from a 70's shite sitcom Anyway, enjoy your night, onnwards and upwards
-
Brilliant Am I the only one who thinks that is a moronic comment?
-
The whole thing is an utter embarrassment. I don't care what they think so why would I want a plane flying over the stadium suggesting I do. Just turn it in, the reason why our craic about their relegation has been so shit is because they are fairly irrelevant. Half arsed gestures like this are just a bit mackemesque
-
Really!! I was doing that by the age of 11. Fair play to the guy though he never mentioned it and just got on with playing
-
Newcastle United lose Judicial Review against HMRC
1964 replied to ChrisMcQuillan's topic in Football
They are but mistakes will be made. Think about it, Civil Servants serving every single business and tax paying individual in the UK, you are going to get some war stories -
Newcastle United lose Judicial Review against HMRC
1964 replied to ChrisMcQuillan's topic in Football
Brass Neck He's got a point tbh. They're like a legalised mafia. I've got personal experience of their mafia-esque behaviour. A bloke my stepdad works with was hit with a fairly large tax bill which he didn't owe and came close to him losing his home and everything they had. His wife was a housewife with no career and she self-studied tax law to overcome their problem. Once their issue was resolved she undertook full accountant training which specialises in taxes. She now works full time for little to no fee representing people who have been screwed by the tax man. My stepdad had an income tax a few years ago, how he managed it considering he has worked for North Tyneside council for over 30 years is beyond anyone's guess, but they alleged he owed them money. He sent the letter of demands off to his mates wife where she wrote back to them saying he didn't owe it because of such and such. They wrote back and changed their demand to 10% of their original request. He sent it back off to his mates wife who wrote back to them and said he doesn't owe that. The next letter he received was one saying he didn't owe them anything and that they apologise for the error. He went from being told he owed over £2,000 to owing them nothing. They really do just pick names out of the hat and request money. They really don't, you absolute loon. The PAYE system isn't perfect but it's based on the information the employer and individual supplies HMRC. Mistakes are going to happen, it's practically unavoidable but to suggest their picking names from a hat to choose which people's lives they ruin is ludicrous talk. Last sentence was an exaggeration, however when they have people who are highly trained in fraud and very experienced, then when the mistake is pointed out to them there is no reason why they should still be chasing people. If someone who has only just studied tax law and rules can point these mistakes out then there is no reason for HMRC to be making the mistakes, even after the error has been highlighted. At the very best that equals incompetence, at the worst they just don't have any regard for anyone and continue down the line chasing people for money out of stubbornness. Sorry mate but you have no idea how the public sector works. HMRC is a massive organisation, bringing in billions of pounds into the exchequer. They have low paid Civil Servants carrying out process based tasks. They are not highly trained in law and there is a reason for that, if the taxpayer funds the training of tax professionals to be highly skilled they will leave and get much more money in an accountancy firm or as an accountant in business. It does not make sense to give them massive amounts of 'free' training. So you either pay them much more or you tolerate the consequences of having an organisation, funded by the taxpayer which makes mistakes. Which one do you think a government would go for? -
Newcastle United lose Judicial Review against HMRC
1964 replied to ChrisMcQuillan's topic in Football
Yep - it's a PR exercise. Wouldn't be surprised if they know they're gonna lose the rangers case tbh. Doubt it's a PR exercise, PR for what? They don't have competition. It's a statement of intent, they are going to do something to prove that they can, they have been after football for years. I fear we are the fall guys -
A cut price deal?, they still owe us £24m. Whats the deal going to be like?, we'll take him back and you only owe is £20m instead? No we'll take him back and you still owe us £30m
-
He won a corner late on and the cheer from the Spurs fans was loud, I think they underestimate his ability to kick a ball off an opposing players leg and out of play. It's his signature dish
-
Just because it happened 4 or 5 years ago doesn't negate its significance. It is still something that we could get hammered for
-
Newcastle United lose Judicial Review against HMRC
1964 replied to ChrisMcQuillan's topic in Football
Never underestimate the stupidity of government organisations. Fair challenge as long as you don't underestimate the stupidity of Newcastle United -
Newcastle United lose Judicial Review against HMRC
1964 replied to ChrisMcQuillan's topic in Football
Given that HMRC are under pressure to deliver something to prove they don't just hit the little guys I doubt this is going to end well. They got slaughtered for the last attempt to bring football in line (Karren Brady, Harry Redknapp where particularly scathing) so I doubt they will make the same mistake again. -
Newcastle United lose Judicial Review against HMRC
1964 replied to ChrisMcQuillan's topic in Football
Jesus wept. £5m is still a very significant amount of money, hence why 180 officers were present in their raids this morning. So you saying HMRC should forget it about it because they managed to close a one off tax avoidance scheme? No, I am saying this is a statement of intent and the incoming monies are not the primary concern -
Newcastle United lose Judicial Review against HMRC
1964 replied to ChrisMcQuillan's topic in Football
In fact it was £820 million. £5 million is nothing, you do realise as the primary tax collecting body they effectively fund the country http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36986483 -
Newcastle United lose Judicial Review against HMRC
1964 replied to ChrisMcQuillan's topic in Football
It's alot of money to HMRC. Is it bollocks one company last year was chased for over £100 million -
Newcastle United lose Judicial Review against HMRC
1964 replied to ChrisMcQuillan's topic in Football
Too fat for handcuffs. Leg irons.... on his wrists -
Newcastle United lose Judicial Review against HMRC
1964 replied to ChrisMcQuillan's topic in Football
Love the idea of a rouge individual, I bet they're left red-faced -
Newcastle United promoted back to the Premier League
1964 replied to Figures 1-0 Football's topic in Football
Given the shift in power to the Southern sides then the Northern sides for me every time -
With the riches in the Premier League and his previous pronouncements on selling the club, I can't see any takeover materialising
-
He could have had the perfect hattrick left hand right hand and head
-
Perez can't get a hat trick off his elbow
-
Has Rob Lee been sleeping rough??? Scruffy get
-
Really?? They couldn't score in a crack den
-
Pardon my forrinness, but what in the f*** is that? I'm not a forrin and I have no idea what he's talking about. There was an episode of a 70's sitcom, based in Newcastle, about 2 blokes. One bloke tried to avoid the match score all day, only to be told by his wife, as he was settling down to watch Match of the Day, that it wasn't worth it as there were no goals. This isn't quite right. Bob and Terry sit down to watch it on TV but the figure skating is on instead as the match had been postponed. Abandoned due to fog, as they were driving past a tv shop Terry sees 'England F....' and they spend the rest of the day trying to avoid the score but trying to work out what the 'F' might have stood for.