Simply put, barring a back bench rebellion or an upset in the House of Lords a government with a decent majority can pretty much do what it wants if it really wants to.
-
So even with these amendments tabled its pretty likely that its going to go through unchanged? -
Interesting article that casts doubt on whether Clause 55 even achieves what HMRC intended. It doesn't appear to have been very well drafted.
http://www.taxation.co.uk/Articles/2...connection.htm
Quote:
A side issue – for the purposes of this article – is that it is debatable whether the clause achieves its intended aims. The clause introduces a new subsection (4) into ITTOIA 2005, s 85 which says that ‘for the purposes of this section the members of a firm include any person entitled to a share of income of the firm’.
It is debatable whether the beneficiary of a trust whose trustees are members of a partnership are in fact caught by this at all.
...
The clause has in it the following sentence. ‘The amendments made by subsections (1) and (3) are treated as always having had effect’ (our italics).
Several authorities have said to us that in their view this is simply very poor drafting. What for example is ‘as always having had effect’ supposed to mean? Does it perhaps mean that the amendments to the legislation had effect before the relevant legislation itself ever existed? Would the Doomsday book be far enough back?Comment
-
I wonder if Montpelier know about this article?Comment
-
So what are "other offshore outfits" doing then? Mine is doing something odd. Not sure I'm overly happy with it, but rolling with it for now.Originally posted by BrilloPad View PostComment
-
That is exactly how I feel. I have asked fot details of new scheme - they are working out the details.Originally posted by kryten22uk View Post
If I had the enegry I would look at their scheme and the other offshore ones. The sanza/DMZ offices are very close to ClientCo.
But if I had the energy I would get a new clientco - I do wish I could cos I hate it.Comment
-
I have stepped away from a scheme and I am standing by for developments. The announcements in Budget 2008 / Note 66 seem to me that outlaw off-shore schemes altogether. I am looking at news/feedback about what other people are doing. The way I see it , there is uncertainty at the moment.Originally posted by BrilloPad View PostComment
-
Debate on Clause 55
The debate on Clause 55 began yesterday morning. Unfortunately, they've cocked up the filing on the web site, so the afternoon's proceedings are not available
Jane Kennedy, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is opposing the ammendments. In all likelihood, as someone already mentioned, the Government will use it's majority to force the legislation through.
I will update the thread today if I manage to find out what happened when the debate continued in the afternoon.
(Press "Next" until you get to Clause 55 just after 9:45am)
http://www.publications.parliament.u...p-01.htm#startComment
-
Doesnt look good at this stage does it ?
Has anyone had any recent updates from montpelier whilst all this has been going on ?SAY NO TO RETROSPECTIVE TAXComment
-
Bad News
Sorry to get your weekend off to a bad start but...
The government have used their majority to block the ammendments. Clause 55 has been approved as drafted.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...22p.35-41.html
The legislation will be debated in the House of Lords but that is pretty much a waste of time.
So, as it stands at the moment, this will become law from mid-July. I'm not sure there is much more we can do now.
I have put a call in to Montpelier to find out where we go from here. I will update the thread again as soon as I get a response.Comment
-
It says 'not called' in the attachment...what does this mean? Does this mean the proposal was rejected?Comment
Comment