Still ongoing, progress being made. 
Knock Knock…whos there? lol
What progress mate? I have a vested interest in this, probably would’ve had a greater interest if I’d paid the fines mind!
the maoster:
What progress mate? I have a vested interest in this, probably would’ve had a greater interest if I’d paid the fines mind!
The info I have on good authority is this,
===========================
You need a bit more than “good authority” such as a link, or a named source which is VERIFIABLE.
robbo99.:
the maoster:
What progress mate? I have a vested interest in this, probably would’ve had a greater interest if I’d paid the fines mind!The info I have on good authority is this,
===========================
You need a bit more than “good authority” such as a link, or a named source which is VERIFIABLE.
HMRC counter avoidance is the named source also HM tax tribunals all documented. It is all available to anyone who has an ongoing interest in the Think Accounting/MSC Legislation situation.
You need a bit more than “good authority” such as a link, or a named source which is VERIFIABLE.
HMRC counter avoidance is the named source also HM tax tribunals all documented.
TBF Robbo99, you saying that was from HMRC Counter Avoidance is not the same as having a link to a newspaper article or similar. 
It is all available to anyone who has an ongoing interest in the Think Accounting/MSC Legislation situation.
Indeed it is, took me all of 30 seconds to find it here HMRC Page
robbo99.:
robbo99.:
the maoster:
What progress mate? I have a vested interest in this, probably would’ve had a greater interest if I’d paid the fines mind!The info I have on good authority is this,
===========================
You need a bit more than “good authority” such as a link, or a named source which is VERIFIABLE.
HMRC counter avoidance is the named source also HM tax tribunals all documented. It is all available to anyone who has an ongoing interest in the Think Accounting/MSC Legislation situation.
Sorry robbo99,
Please read the forum rules about rumours, just below Rule #9.
Here’s a link to what I think you mean:
Col beat me to it!!
dieseldave:
Col beat me to it!!
Take your point dieseldave but everything I have quoted I have written evidence, nothing is rumour. I have stated facts.
robbo99.:
dieseldave:
Col beat me to it!!Take your point dieseldave but everything I have quoted I have written evidence, nothing is rumour. I have stated facts.
If you class facts as bull manure then I can’t think of an argument to that 
robbo99.:
dieseldave:
Col beat me to it!!Take your point dieseldave but everything I have quoted I have written evidence, nothing is rumour. I have stated facts.
In my turn, I take your point, but…
Upon first reading of your “facts” how was anybody supposed to evaluate what you were saying?
It simply isn’t good enough to say things like “good authority” or “I have stated facts” without backing it up because there are those who say exactly that when they’re spouting complete crap (sometimes maliciously, but not in your case this time.) 
As it was, it was actually a very easy task to find and post a verifiable link.
Lacking that, somebody else had to remove the content of your post, or find and post an acceptable link for you in order to comply with forum rules.
It’s no big deal now, cos it’s sorted.
.
dieseldave:
robbo99.:
dieseldave:
Col beat me to it!!Take your point dieseldave but everything I have quoted I have written evidence, nothing is rumour. I have stated facts.
In my turn, I take your point, but…
Upon first reading of your “facts” how was anybody supposed to evaluate what you were saying?
It simply isn’t good enough to say things like “good authority” or “I have stated facts” without backing it up because there are those who say exactly that when they’re spouting complete crap (sometimes maliciously, but not in your case this time.)
As it was, it was actually a very easy task to find and post a verifiable link.
It’s no big deal now, cos it’s sorted.
So will my post be available for all to see?
robbo99.:
the maoster:
What progress mate? I have a vested interest in this, probably would’ve had a greater interest if I’d paid the fines mind!The info I have on good authority is this,
===========================
You need a bit more than “good authority” such as a link, or a named source which is VERIFIABLE.
I’ve never understood this. I posted once about a firm that had gone bust. I parked in the same Operating Centre as them, I knew nearly all of the drivers, I spoke to them as they cleared their trucks out for the very last time, with representatives of the finance company waiting to remove the trucks. At the time I had been a TruckNet member for ten years, held my own Operator’s Licence, posted sufficient photos of my truck for anybody to be able to determine my real name, home address and access my company accounts for as long as I had been trading, yet my post was removed because it wasn’t “verifiable”.
Harry Monk:
robbo99.:
the maoster:
What progress mate? I have a vested interest in this, probably would’ve had a greater interest if I’d paid the fines mind!The info I have on good authority is this,
===========================
You need a bit more than “good authority” such as a link, or a named source which is VERIFIABLE.
I’ve never understood this. I posted once about a firm that had gone bust. I parked in the same Operating Centre as them, I knew nearly all of the drivers, I spoke to them as they cleared their trucks out for the very last time, with representatives of the finance company waiting to remove the trucks. At the time I had been a TruckNet member for ten years, held my own Operator’s Licence, posted sufficient photos of my truck for anybody to be able to determine my real name, home address and access my company accounts for as long as I had been trading, yet my post was removed because it wasn’t “verifiable”.
Well Harry Monk, I’m at a bit of a loss as to what I can or can’t post. I have given the sources of my information, it is all above board. If I choose to I can name the officer at HMRC Counter Avoidance who is dealing with the MSC Legislation re Think Accounting, I can name the Forensic Liquidation Company and for that matter the member of staff that is dealing with the contentious liquidation of Think Accounting and I can name the Judge whom is seeing over the MSC appeals, I think there is too much info there and I very much doubt if any of the aforementioned would have the time or the inclination to speak to a representative of an online forum.
Welcome to my world kids…
robbo99.:
the maoster:
What progress mate? I have a vested interest in this, probably would’ve had a greater interest if I’d paid the fines mind!The info I have on good authority is this,
The MSC Legislation was tested on some co’s that worked in the medical sector, it went to the first tier tax tribunal and the decision went in HMRC s favour, the appellants then appealed this to the Upper tax tribunal and again HMRC won the case. The appellants have now appealed to the court of appeal which deals with the legal aspects of the MSC legislation. The appellants are not forced to get an appeal but it will certainly take time either way. IF the appellants get an appeal with the court of appeal and win on the legality of the legislation then it will basically put a spanner in HMRC’s very slow moving wheel and who knows what will happen then.
As you know the bills sent to Drivers are based on a joint and several basis, meaning the Driver’s company gets the bill, if it can’t pay it then it is transferred to the Director, ie the Driver, if he/she has no assets it will be passed to Think Accounting, obviously they have no assets so it will be passed to the Directors of Think, yes their own personal wealth.
The authorities are very much on their case and it appears wrong doings have been committed and millions of tax/ni are owing to HMRC, due to the legislation.
Put it this way, I wouldn’t like to be in the Directors shoes and this will run and run and hopefully give them plenty of pay back for their actions. These things drag on and on but progress is being made though very slowly. FORENSIC Liquidators are on their case and they work very closely with certain authorities, if you know what I mean?
===========================
robbo99,
I’ve replaced the ‘removed’ with your original words.
If you’re going to post something like this, then please provide a link as per forum rules.
Thanks!!
dieseldave:
robbo99.:
the maoster:
What progress mate? I have a vested interest in this, probably would’ve had a greater interest if I’d paid the fines mind!The info I have on good authority is this,
The MSC Legislation was tested on some co’s that worked in the medical sector, it went to the first tier tax tribunal and the decision went in HMRC s favour, the appellants then appealed this to the Upper tax tribunal and again HMRC won the case. The appellants have now appealed to the court of appeal which deals with the legal aspects of the MSC legislation. The appellants are not forced to get an appeal but it will certainly take time either way. IF the appellants get an appeal with the court of appeal and win on the legality of the legislation then it will basically put a spanner in HMRC’s very slow moving wheel and who knows what will happen then.
As you know the bills sent to Drivers are based on a joint and several basis, meaning the Driver’s company gets the bill, if it can’t pay it then it is transferred to the Director, ie the Driver, if he/she has no assets it will be passed to Think Accounting, obviously they have no assets so it will be passed to the Directors of Think, yes their own personal wealth.
The authorities are very much on their case and it appears wrong doings have been committed and millions of tax/ni are owing to HMRC, due to the legislation.
Put it this way, I wouldn’t like to be in the Directors shoes and this will run and run and hopefully give them plenty of pay back for their actions. These things drag on and on but progress is being made though very slowly. FORENSIC Liquidators are on their case and they work very closely with certain authorities, if you know what I mean?
===========================
robbo99,
I’ve replaced the ‘removed’ with your original words.
Thanks!!
Thanks
I’m assuming by not naming names I can post this?
One person arrested
One person disappeared off the face of the planet, as yet untraceable
One person left his home and found wandering aimlessly days later with his dog in Sheffield suffering from depression
Millions owed to creditors including HMRC
Forensic Liquidators working along side the authorities
Does ripping off all and sundry really pay?
robbo99.:
One person left his home and found wandering aimlessly days later with his dog in Sheffield suffering from depression
That could be any driver who stopped overnight at the Stockyard on grab-a-granny night
peirre:
robbo99.:
One person left his home and found wandering aimlessly days later with his dog in Sheffield suffering from depressionThat could be any driver who stopped overnight at the Stockyard on grab-a-granny night
