BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[zippo]

Brillo, Received the same message myself - obviously a standard response. Mine also states that they will pay any fees incurred by hanging on past the 30 days.
All in all, a positive direction it seems but I am not hanging on too long.

Grim,

Who is sending you the message ??

[DonkeyRhubarb]

this is interesting, look at the date!:

http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/cgi-b...26&h=524&f=525

and check this out which is an extract from the institute of chartered accountants letters to Dawn Prim (paymaster general at the time):

• The legal basis for retrospective legislation is now questionable, particularly in the wider context of EU and Human Rights laws. Emerging EU case law provides that the state cannot retrospectively remove a right without a transitional period (the so-called legitimate expectation right as found in Marks-and-Spencer v C&E Commrs (C-62/00)). If there is no transitional period, then the removal of the right will be illegal under EU law if it interferes with an EC treaty freedom and the state will be liable in damages

We accept that the extent of the legitimate expectation right has yet to be determined precisely in cases where tax avoidance may be an issue, but in our view emerging ECJ decisions suggest that the introduction of retrospective legislation relying on the statement made on 2 December 2005 would still fail the legitimate expectation right, thus making such legislation illegal under EU law.

very interesting....

Various professional bodies (Institute of Chartered Accountants, Institute of Taxation) have made representations on the use of retrospection but the government isn't taking any notice. This can't be defeated in parliament because of their majority. It can only realistically be challenged in the courts where they will have to defend their position on its legal merits not just cos they've got more bums on seats than the opposing side.

I will contact MontP on Friday to see if we can get a statement on the outcome of Thursday's meeting with HMRC posted here before the weekend.

[redkieran]

I'd like to say thanks to you guys for providing info on this forum! I've been using MP for about 5 years, and know several other people who have been using it for a while who are also reading this.

I must admit I'm not massively confident at the moment but I'm prepared to wait and see what happens over the next month.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I must admit I'm not massively confident at the moment but I'm prepared to wait and see what happens over the next month.

Hi and welcome. IMO, this is a sensible* stance to take.

I was going to say prudent but that's a bit of dirty word these days.

[BrilloPad]

I'd like to say thanks to you guys for providing info on this forum! I've been using MP for about 5 years, and know several other people who have been using it for a while who are also reading this.

I must admit I'm not massively confident at the moment but I'm prepared to wait and see what happens over the next month.

Welcome to cuk and this thread!

Well done for saying hello and not just lurking.

This post looks very promising :-

http://forums.contractoruk.com/545544-post299.html

[smalldog]

the other thing I spotted in the transcipt was when Jane Kennedy was asked why the scheme hasnt been closed down sooner...she basically said that HMRC knew about it but didnt act to close it until now as the number of scheme users is on the increase....Now surely its either valid or invalid, regardless of the number of users. This implies HMRC would have turned a blind eye to it if few enough people had been on the scheme...

Good luck in court Jane, lets hope you dont get called!!!! and thats the finance secretary, god help us

Brillo, very promising indeed!!! not only does it say retrospective legislation is illegal but that even prospective legislation must have a transitional period to allow people to get their affairs in order before it applies...now thats whats called fair...

[bananarepublic]

I've been reading this forum for a while. Some of the information has been helpful, like the links showing the workings of the finance bill but I can't help feeling that participants have been whipping themselves up into a state of false optimism.

Lets face facts. The government would have consulted their own lawyers about the retrospective nature of the BN66 changes. I've no idea about the legal process, but it seems a very big step to expect a judge to throw out a law made by an act of parliament . Remember IR35. The judicial review went exactly no where. Any body know the success rate of JR's?

No, I think that we have pretty much reached the end of the road. Its a bit late to be worrying about CTD's/payments on account - how long do you think this will go on for? When the finance bill gets Royal Ascent its all over.

The only consolation I can get out of this is that many of the MP's who rubber stamped, err voted through this measure will soon be getting their P45's. Alas for us not soon enough. [ Anyone else get the irony of finally getting fleeced just as the tipping point has been reached with regards the NuLabs popularity ]

[malvolio]

the other thing I spotted in the transcipt was when Jane Kennedy was asked why the scheme hasnt been closed down sooner...she basically said that HMRC knew about it but didnt act to close it until now as the number of scheme users is on the increase....

Simple. Their cases are costed, so presumably it's only now that the potential recovery will exceed the cost of the work required to collect it.

[BrilloPad]

Simple. Their cases are costed, so presumably it's only now that the potential recovery will exceed the cost of the work required to collect it.

Good point - I expect that will come up in the meeting tomorrow.

So when they decide they can go back as far as they like? They expect all the cards stacked in their favour...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Good point - I expect that will come up in the meeting tomorrow.

So when they decide they can go back as far as they like? They expect all the cards stacked in their favour...

Perhaps the Police should adopt the same tactics ie. allow criminals to commit enough crimes over several years before prosecuting them so they can bang them up for longer.

If HMRC become aware of an abuse surely they should act to close it down as soon as possible, not wait 7 years until it gets completely out of hand and then have to resort to a retrospective measure to deal with it?