BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued

[MuddyFunster]

Not one person I have ever described my situation to hasnt been aghast. Typical reaction is 'they can't do that can they?'

Totally agree. Exactly the same thing has happened to me. I've had nothing but sympathy from people. Their reaction is based on backdating tax law - not being on a tax avoidance scheme.

[BrilloPad]

That may be why the property developers are keeping a low profile. They would probably be even more vilified than us.

What do you reckon the chances are of the papers taking an interest in this type of case in the high court?

If we want it to appear - it can easily be arranged. Personally I think it would be spun to make us look bad and could even damage the JR.

Should we lose then it can't do any harm! But it is unlikely to come to that.....

[Emigre]

If we want it to appear - it can easily be arranged. Personally I think it would be spun to make us look bad and could even damage the JR.

I'm with you on this one BP - editorial control lies elsewhere. I trust the judiciary to look at the bigger picture and the concept of precedent.

This does not make headlines. "Fat Cat IT Contractors on £2k/day Take Tax P*ss" is the typical narrow perspective that sells red tops.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I'm with you on this one BP - editorial control lies elsewhere. I trust the judiciary to look at the bigger picture and the concept of precedent.

This does not make headlines. "Fat Cat IT Contractors on £2k/day Take Tax P*ss" is the typical narrow perspective that sells red tops.

I'm persuaded. With all the other sh*t going on at the moment I doubt it would be particularly newsworthy anyway.

[BrilloPad]

I'm persuaded. With all the other sh*t going on at the moment I doubt it would be particularly newsworthy anyway.

But its a close call - and times change!

Of course a worry is that HMRC might decide to leak this first to put their own spin on it - though I doubt they would be that stupid.

[Emigre]

But its a close call - and times change!

Of course a worry is that HMRC might decide to leak this first to put their own spin on it - though I doubt they would be that stupid.

But they are very good at leaving things on trains

[DonkeyRhubarb]

http://www.uhy-uk.com/pages/posts/go...ousands630.php

Roy Maugham, Tax Partner at our London office, comments: “The Government is perfectly entitled to legislate to close a tax loophole, but this is increasingly being done in a retrospective way, which is contrary to most people’s view of natural justice.”

“In theory taxpayers could be liable for tax backdated to 1987! They could be looking at tens of thousands of pounds of tax. Many of these are small businesses which will go to the wall.”

He adds: “It doesn’t seem reasonable that thousands of taxpayers will effectively be guilty of tax evasion for tax planning which at the time it was undertaken was considered to be legal. If it contravened existing legislation why does the Government feel the need to bring in a new law with retrospective effect? Surely that suggests it was legal in the first place and should be allowed to remain so for that period.”

[smalldog]

its very interesting that there doesnt appear to have been a single professional quote endorsing the goverments retrospective approach....or are we getting a slanted view of the world...?

[Ratican]

The principle of tax avoidance

The principle of tax avoidance as explained by Lord Tomlin in 1936, is that:

“Every man is entitled, if he can, to order his affairs so as that the tax … is less than it otherwise would be”. (IR Commissioners v. Duke of Westminster)

Lord Tomlin’s quote continues:

“If he succeeds …, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax.”

Article here: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/pl...eddin_the.html

[DonkeyRhubarb]

its very interesting that there doesnt appear to have been a single professional quote endorsing the goverments retrospective approach....or are we getting a slanted view of the world...?

If there are any who support it, I haven't come across them. Even Tim Warr doesn't go so far as to say he agrees with it, even though he's obviously tried to exploit it for his own ends. You would have to be a pretty short-sighted tax professional to approve of changing the rules retrospectively, no matter how strongly you dislike tax avoidance.