Talk:BN66

Untitled

First draft by myself, hopefully people can add and update.

The IR in IR35 doesn't stand for "Intermediary Regulation", it stands for "Inland Revenue"; IR35 was the 35th note attached to the 1999 budget. At the time, the Inland Revenue hadn't been merged with Customs & Excise, hence the IR designation. 78.144.84.20 (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BN66. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613170053/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2008/bn66.pdf to http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2008/bn66.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Page Updated

I have applied edits to this page to clarify tax planning, and sections such as 'A Change of Tactics' and 'Budget Note 66' etc. Signed Taxingtothepoint — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxingtothepoint (talk • contribs) 13:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

No, you whitewashed the article to remove all references to Tax avoidance or acknowledgement that this was a massive loophole.- MrOllie (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There's no whitewash! The article stands. The link to tax avoidance and tax planning still stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxingtothepoint (talk • contribs) 14:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

You also added unsourced criticism of Jane Kennedy, calling her a liar, which is a plain violation of WP:BLP. - MrOllie (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Not true. She is not called a 'liar.' The statement is she mislead Parliament. Stop undoing the edits to this article you have no knowledge about signed and stop throwing comments about using the term 'liar' about. Taxingtothepoint::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxingtothepoint (talk • contribs) 14:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we agree. You're accusing her of a serious offense, with no evidence or sourcing. You can be blocked from Wikipedia for that. - MrOllie (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you a Wiki moderator or something else? You have made inaccurate accusations about 'whitewashing' and calling people 'liars' when all that has been done is clarify the BN66 page. The edits are minimal if you took the time to review them and frequently edit a single word, sentence or paragraph. If you are so bothered about 'whitewash' which wasnt in the original page text, why dont you add it and let the edits I made stand? signed Taxingtothepoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxingtothepoint (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a 'moderator', but I have been on this site long enough to know that if you continue to make accusations against individuals without any reliable sourcing or evidence you will definitely be blocked. The most serious defect in your changes is the BLP violation, but the rest of the whitewashing is also problematic. Rewriting the article to match your political slant is not appropriate, especially at the behest of one of the 'lead campaigners', as you indicated on my talk page. That is an obvious conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)