BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[BolshieBastard]

I'm not sure that's right. Certainly you cannot JR primary legislation which the finance act is - but surely BN66 is implemented as a statutory instrument which can be JR'd (even though it relates to the finance act). I seem to recall this is the process by which PCG got the JR on the original IR35 implementation.

It may be that now the SI has been implemented in the now passed 2008 Finance Act the opportunity for JR has passed.

I can most definitely tell you it is right. This very fact caused a constitutional crisis in the last century when the Lords refused a Government finance bill of the budget. It led to the Parliament Bill which enable the Government to push a bill through into legislation if it is delayed by the Lords.

This, lead to the convention that the House of Lords (which is also the highest court in the UK) does not and cannot force out any Government Bill which is attached to the Budget Finance Act.

Not even the EU Law changes that fact. If you want more understanding, may I suggests you read 'The British Constition & Politics' by MacMillan Press.

[Churchill]

Not even the EU Law changes that fact. If you want more understanding, may I suggests you read 'The British Constition & Politics' by MacMillan Press.

"The British Constitution"? Where the f**k is that written down in law then?

[BrilloPad]

"The British Constitution"? Where the f**k is that written down in law then?

Is that Magna Carta? Though I have seen the attorney general break Magna Carta - I guess the constitution is whatever the current government wants it to be.....

[tendo71]

Quick intro - with MP for 4 years and will be hit for close to 6 figures.

Does anyone know of any precedent set by the ECHR regarding retrospective tax law? This is the only thing I can find

"Article 1 of the First Protocol protects the right to property but expressly preserves the right of states to levy tax and to secure the payment of those taxes. Again, the Convention organs have been reluctant to interfere in the tax sphere. In A, B, C, D v. UK (Application No.8531/79) the ECnHR found retrospective legislation contained in Finance Act 1978, (FA 1978), s. 31 to prevent tax avoidance to be compatible with the ECHR. Wide measures for the enforcement of taxes including the seizure of property and the levying of fines for procedural non-compliance have also been upheld."

http://www.tax.org.uk/showarticle.pl?id=571

I have a CTD and will await the outcome - but I really believe that HMRC will win in the end.

[poppy01]

I have a CTD and will await the outcome - but I really believe that HMRC will win in the end.

though I state again, this law and the manner in which was introduced is unprecedented in British law, and it patently is in violation of the 1998 Hman rights act.

[kiwinlondon]

Tendo... Mr B has to hope his lawyers have come up with a good strategy cause they are going down ...

[BrilloPad]

Quick intro - with MP for 4 years and will be hit for close to 6 figures.

Does anyone know of any precedent set by the ECHR regarding retrospective tax law? This is the only thing I can find

"Article 1 of the First Protocol protects the right to property but expressly preserves the right of states to levy tax and to secure the payment of those taxes. Again, the Convention organs have been reluctant to interfere in the tax sphere. In A, B, C, D v. UK (Application No.8531/79) the ECnHR found retrospective legislation contained in Finance Act 1978, (FA 1978), s. 31 to prevent tax avoidance to be compatible with the ECHR. Wide measures for the enforcement of taxes including the seizure of property and the levying of fines for procedural non-compliance have also been upheld."

http://www.tax.org.uk/showarticle.pl?id=571

I have a CTD and will await the outcome - but I really believe that HMRC will win in the end.

Welcome to this thread!

I trust in montp - but I put our chances of success at 75%. This will increase to 100% when I get those picture of Mr Brannigan (helloo ) going down on the pool boy...

[kiwinlondon]

To quote what they always used to say on the cop shows.... "anything you say can be used against you" ... and Big Brother is watching!!!

[ASB]

though I state again, this law and the manner in which was introduced is unprecedented in British law, and it patently is in violation of the 1998 Hman rights act.

If it is (and I think it could be) all you can get is a declaration that it is incompatible. Doesn't get it struck out or similar.

[ASB]

I can most definitely tell you it is right. This very fact caused a constitutional crisis in the last century when the Lords refused a Government finance bill of the budget. It led to the Parliament Bill which enable the Government to push a bill through into legislation if it is delayed by the Lords.

This, lead to the convention that the House of Lords (which is also the highest court in the UK) does not and cannot force out any Government Bill which is attached to the Budget Finance Act.

Not even the EU Law changes that fact. If you want more understanding, may I suggests you read 'The British Constition & Politics' by MacMillan Press.

It is, as you say, only convention that prevents the HoL from voting down a finance bill . Hence the parliament act and the opportunity for the government to pass (in theory) any legislation it wants. I think the last use of the parliament act was to allow the buggering of young boys.

However I am not sure why you think we haven't given up some sovereignty to the EU. We plainly have. That extends also to the finance act. If the ECJ finds it in contravention of (incompatible with) relevant EU law then the EU can order it to be struck out or amended (though it can't actually force this).

At this point we can either accede to this request or play at being French and ignore it to see it what happens. [We could actually pass a new bill to selectively ignore this specific instruction if we felt so inclined but we'd be in a pretty deep crisis by then].

So I agree that the HoL don't really interfere with Finance Bill (I never said they would); but the fact remains the the ECJ can and have done so. They are, however, very reluctant to interfere in any member state primary financial legislation - so it is rare they find for an appellant.