BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[BrilloPad]

Could we not just retrospectively alter everything we've done for the last 5 yrs so we arent using that structure.. then resubmit our tax returns and therefore no bills... ??

I would love to forward that to the barrister for the JR : would be a great line in court. Shows what a sham the HMRC position is.

[smalldog]

I would love to forward that to the barrister for the JR : would be a great line in court. Shows what a sham the HMRC position is.

that is a very interesting argument! For any legislation that deems an increase in payable tax why cant the tax payer retrospectively arrange their affairs so its no longer payable if HMRC can apply action retrospectively, Why cant the tax payer? It makes a total mockery of their case, of course we cant and neither can they...

[nuffsaid]

http://www.tax.org.uk/attach.pl/7561...23_TA_1208.pdf

Mentions BN66/Section 58 towards the end.

Excellent find DR.
For those that haven't read it yet you're mising some good stuff (read from the second para on the last page).

[nuffsaid]

http://www.tax.org.uk/attach.pl/7561...23_TA_1208.pdf

Mentions BN66/Section 58 towards the end.

So as I understand it, there are four ways to introduce legislation with only the last three being accepted methods.

1. Retrospective: Back date it to 1987 and charge all cases back to 1987.
2. Retroactive: Back date it to 1987 and charge where cases are still open at that time (i.e. our 2007/2008 returns).
3. Proactive: Back date it to 1987 but only trigger the charge (back to 1987) for anyone that refuses to stop.
4. Standard (not sure of the legalease term): Start it and charge from the point of introduction (i.e our 2008/2009 returns).

I think the Govt will argue that if anything it is Retroactive as they've dated it to cover cases that are open (i.e. 2002). They're missing the fact that these cases are only open because they refused to accept we were right in the first place.
So as we all suspected, it really is Retrospective and it does go against our Human Rights plus all recommendations made by tax commentors.
I really can't believe that they think they'll get away with it!

After the JR (and more arguing) I think they'll accept Retroactive dated from 2007/2008.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So as I understand it, there are four ways to introduce legislation.

1. Retrospective: Back date it to 1987 and charge all cases back to 1987.
2. Retroactive: Back date it to 1987 and charge where cases are still open at that time (i.e. our 2007/2008 returns).
3. Proactive: Back date it to 1987 but only trigger the charge for anyone that refuses to stop.
4. Standard (not sure of the legalease term): Start it and charge from the point of introduction (i.e our 2008/2009 returns).

I think the Govt believe that if anything it is Retroactive as they've dated it to cover cases that are open (i.e. 2002). They're missing the fact that these cases are only open because they refused to accept we were right.

After the JR (and a bit more arguing) I think they'll accept Retroactive dated from 2007/2008.

"Standard" is usually referred to as prospective legislation ie. the change only affects future transactions.

I think you have slightly misinterpreted the definition of retroactive.

Within the UK, the term retrospective has been widely but not universally used to refer to legislation that changes the consequences of a transaction that was completed in the past, while the term retroactive has been used to refer to legislation that attaches new consequences to acts that were commenced in the past but have not yet been closed.

His use of the word "closed" here is ambiguous. I don't believe he is referring to ongoing investigations but a situation where the transaction itself has not been completed. For example, the recent change to CGT was retroactive in that it could affect the treatment of an asset that someone acquired in the past with the intention of selling in the future. Same goes for the change to car tax for large cars ie. it could alter the resale value of a car bought in the past.

Our case is undeniably retrospective in that the transaction (income earned) was completed in the past.

Where HMRC will come unstuck is that they can't as you say "back date it to 1987 and charge all cases back to 1987" if they have already done deals with some people and closed their returns. A closed return cannot be re-opened other than in the case of fraud. Doh!

[nuffsaid]

His use of the word "closed" here is ambiguous. I don't believe he is referring to ongoing investigations but a situation where the transaction itself has not been completed. For example, the recent change to CGT was retroactive in that it could affect the treatment of an asset that someone acquired in the past with the intention of selling in the future. Same goes for the change to car tax for large cars ie. it could alter the resale value of a car bought in the past.

Ah yes, I makes sense when put into context.

[FloggingDolphin]

Thanks a lot for that helpful reply earlier re: CTD and penalty charges. Maybe I'll just take a £100 CTD on the side, just to get some practice and do a bit of hedging

FD

[BenniDorm]

Montpelier Confirmation that they will/have Appealed?

Does anybody know if Montpelier confirms that they will appeal on your behalf upon receipt of email/correspondence?

I sent all my stuff off electronically on the 20Dec08 asking for confirmation that they will be appealing on my behalf and have received no reply.

I have also chased it since then without success.

I appreciate that they are very busy but just want to be sure that they have my stuff and will be appealing on my behalf....

E-Mail was sent to TQ,NW & JD

Thanks

And Thanks again to all the very positive contributions to this forum.

[AlbionRovers]

Retrospective Tax Planning

Thinking ahead to the JR proceedings.

If MP feel the need to advocate the requirement for all of us to be able to retrospectively re-plan our tax affairs from 1987, similar to someone else we know, will they (MP) ask us all individually in advance for agreement or is it a given that we all agree to this underhand tactic?

[BrilloPad]

Does anybody know if Montpelier confirms that they will appeal on your behalf upon receipt of email/correspondence?

I sent all my stuff off electronically on the 20Dec08 asking for confirmation that they will be appealing on my behalf and have received no reply.

I have also chased it since then without success.

I appreciate that they are very busy but just want to be sure that they have my stuff and will be appealing on my behalf....

E-Mail was sent to TQ,NW & JD

Thanks

And Thanks again to all the very positive contributions to this forum.

I have asked admin to upgrade you so I can PM you.