BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[helen7]

I have also receive 2 surcharges for late payment in 2004 and 2005. (despite my payments being made 1 year before the due date). There are also some interest payments.

Should I contact HMRC direct with this or are NW/TQ going to deal?

What confuses me....the interest penaties seem based on late payment of the original tax, not amended - i paid the original tax 1 year in advance.

An IT error maybe?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Although not on the MontP scheme, I do follow this thread quite regularly. Obviously, the result of the JR will have a very direct impact on the tax planning world. Haven't had a lot to contribute so I suppose I have been lurking and just wanted to take the opportunity to wish all the best of luck with this.

Looking forward to seeing the whole BN66 fiasco thoroughly squashed!!

Thanks for your words of support. BN66 is not good news for anyone practising accountancy or tax planning. The following quote says it all.

Retrospective legislation, that is where law is introduced now which is treated as having been effective from before it was introduced, is effectively the death of legislation. On our shelves as we write this are four fat tomes printed on very thin paper containing most of the UK’s tax legislation. We may as well take those books off the shelf and throw them in the bin, if retrospective legislation is going to be allowed, because the government can, it seems, turn round to us and say that the law wasn’t how it was actually written in the books at the time we entered into transactions relying on it. We wonder what the point is in having it written in the books in the first place.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/667834-post744.html

[Friendly Accountant]

True, but on the other side...

Thanks for your words of support. BN66 is not good news for anyone practising accountancy or tax planning. The following quote says it all.

Retrospective legislation, that is where law is introduced now which is treated as having been effective from before it was introduced, is effectively the death of legislation. On our shelves as we write this are four fat tomes printed on very thin paper containing most of the UK’s tax legislation. We may as well take those books off the shelf and throw them in the bin, if retrospective legislation is going to be allowed, because the government can, it seems, turn round to us and say that the law wasn’t how it was actually written in the books at the time we entered into transactions relying on it. We wonder what the point is in having it written in the books in the first place.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/667834-post744.html

Also interesting to note the significance of a MontP win at the JR. One of the biggest weapons Revenue have in their fight against "Loophole" tax planning is the FEAR of retrospective legislation. Even before BN66, the fear that this could happen drives a lot of people away from the aggressive schemes. The JR could go a long way to eliminating that fear, taking that weapon out of HMRC's arsenal and making the tax planning world a less scary place.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Also interesting to note the significance of a MontP win at the JR. One of the biggest weapons Revenue have in their fight against "Loophole" tax planning is the FEAR of retrospective legislation. Even before BN66, the fear that this could happen drives a lot of people away from the aggressive schemes. The JR could go a long way to eliminating that fear, taking that weapon out of HMRC's arsenal and making the tax planning world a less scary place.

I hadn't really thought about the wider implications of this but presumably there will be a lot of people in your line of work who will be very interested in the outcome of this case? Do you think we can expect support from the professional bodies (ICAEW, CIOT etc.)?

[Murphs]

Just joined - useful stuff re. BN 66

Hi all

Thanks for starting the thread Donkey Rhurbarb. It's good to hear I am not alone in being affecting by retrospective legislation.

I wrote to my MP and received a response saying that he would raise the impact of the legislation on individuals with the treasury. He has received a number of letters.

I haven't received a CN yet, perhaps it will arrive just in time for Xmas!

Bye for now.
Murphs

[Friendly Accountant]

I hadn't really thought about the wider implications of this but presumably there will be a lot of people in your line of work who will be very interested in the outcome of this case? Do you think we can expect support from the professional bodies (ICAEW, CIOT etc.)?

Most definitely lots of interest. The CIOT has made representations, as has the Tax Faculty of the ICAEW, against the use of retrospective legislation.

That being said, as has been acknowledged in previous posts on this thread, there is a potential PR risk associated with some of this so I am not sure how overt they will be in support of any specific cases.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

That being said, as has been acknowledged in previous posts on this thread, there is a potential PR risk associated with some of this so I am not sure how overt they will be in support of any specific cases.

The JR will be mainly challenging the legitimacy of retrospective legislation, so it's easy for them to fully support the principle of it whilst at the same time also supporting the Government's right to counter tax avoidance. I don't see any contradiction here, nor why it should cause them any PR problems. In fact, it would look mighty odd if they didn't support the legal challenge when they were so opposed to the legislation all the way through the progress of the Bill.

[Friendly Accountant]

I can see your point, but I do think they would be walking a bit of a tightrope in supporting the principal of the JR without supporting the specific case. Hey, I could be wrong, I'm in no way privy to any politics that go on at the ICAEW. I do think, however, that this is a case that could be spun either way from a PR point of view and would guess that would be on people's minds in determining what, if any role they will play.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I can see your point, but I do think they would be walking a bit of a tightrope in supporting the principal of the JR without supporting the specific case. Hey, I could be wrong, I'm in no way privy to any politics that go on at the ICAEW. I do think, however, that this is a case that could be spun either way from a PR point of view and would guess that would be on people's minds in determining what, if any role they will play.

No, you are probably right. At a time when we are entering a serious recession and many people are feeling the pinch, losing their jobs etc., the Government will portray us as the villains, just like the short seller "spivs" were conveniently blamed for the banking crisis. It will be hard to lend support to our case without being seen as condoning tax avoidance.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Message from NW and TQ

They would like to say thank you some of the nice comments on the forum, which are really appreciated.