BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[BrilloPad]

Got my tax return through yesterday - obviously working overtime at MP! - and found the statement on the overflow page interesting. HMRC will see this on the returns anyway so I don't think discussion here will jeopardise anything - but it seems that MP are arguing that S.58 doesn't actually apply to us anyway?

The amendment reads:



Without going into too much detail on an open forum, MP it would seem do not think that we fall into this category. This appears to be an entirely new avenue of attack - that even the new legislation doesn't apply. I certainly am not qualified to comment on whether this is a realistic line to take - but at the very least it's nice to know that there are other possibilities beyond the JR!

Interesting post.

Stupid question. If "the new legislation doesn't apply" then why switch from the double taxation to a loan scheme?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Interesting post.

Stupid question. If "the new legislation doesn't apply" then why switch from the double taxation to a loan scheme?

Surely it can't be possible that they have cocked up the retrospective legislation, which was specifically targeted at the scheme, so even that doesn't work?

Surely, even HMRC can't be that stupid?

[deckster]

Surely it can't be possible that they have cocked up the retrospective legislation, which was specifically targeted at the scheme, so even that doesn't work?

Surely, even HMRC can't be that stupid?

You'd think so wouldn't you. Going on past form...I wouldn't put anything past them

[BrilloPad]

Surely it can't be possible that they have cocked up the retrospective legislation, which was specifically targeted at the scheme, so even that doesn't work?

Surely, even HMRC can't be that stupid?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Oh my god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS POST IS INCORRECT. PLEASE IGNORE IT.

SECTION 58 DOES APPLY TO INCOME.


They have cocked it up on the statute register!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...tdocid=3501665

Instead of saying:

"(4)For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) the members of a partnership include any person entitled to a share of income or capital gains of the partnership."

They have left out the "income or".

In other words, Section 58 only applies to Capital Gains, not Income.

Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

[MuddyFunster]

Does this mean I have cause to see if I can beat the world record for drinking a bottle of champagne in the shortest time ever?? Well, until they retrospectively amend the retrospective legislation.

[deckster]

They have cocked it up on the statute register!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...tdocid=3501665

Instead of saying:

"(4)For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) the members of a partnership include any person entitled to a share of income or capital gains of the partnership."

They have left out the "income or".

In other words, Section 58 only applies to Capital Gains, not Income.

Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

Indeed - this could be somewhat important! I notice that at various times and in different publications they refer to 'income', 'capital gains' and 'profit' - which as we all know are not the same things at all. Hopefully brains far better than mine have already digested all this and found something use!

[BrilloPad]

They have cocked it up on the statute register!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...tdocid=3501665

Instead of saying:

"(4)For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) the members of a partnership include any person entitled to a share of income or capital gains of the partnership."

They have left out the "income or".

In other words, Section 58 only applies to Capital Gains, not Income.

Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

Great find

Maybe if HMRC spent more time paying attention instead of surfing this thread they might have got it right......

[NO TO RETRO]

Does this mean I have cause to see if I can beat the world record for drinking a bottle of champagne in the shortest time ever?? Well, until they retrospectively amend the retrospective legislation.

Don't mean to be a damp squib but whilst being extremely amusing, this is just an admin error that will be amended isn't it? Nothing for us to get excited about?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Stupid question. If "the new legislation doesn't apply" then why switch from the double taxation to a loan scheme?

Not a stupid question at all.

The situation prior to 12th March 2008 is dealt with by Section 58 (the retrospective bit).

The situation from 12th March 2008 onwards is addressed by Section 59, which is much more of a blanket measure.

The DTA scheme would fail Section 59.