BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[Squicker]

If the Government got it's way over BN66, would it set a precedent?

Could they introduce more retrospective legislation, saying "this is just like BN66"?

If the courts allowed BN66, then presumably it would make it very difficult to ever challenge retrospective tax in the future.

It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

I am sure it would become quite damaging for business and investment in this country. Anyone making a particular investment choice based upon tax breaks would consider that decision ripe for attack in the future and therefore possibly not make it.

The potential fallout if this bit of retrospective legislation were allowed, is massive. And for that reason alone it will not be allowed.

Ben

[poppy01]

try clicking the link, you get

Sorry but the page you are trying to reach cannot be found.
There could be a number of reasons for this:

the page may have been deleted or moved following updates to our site
the page address may have been typed incorrectly
In order to find the page you need we recommend either of the following:

try again using our search facility at the top of the screen
return to our home page and use the links from there
If you’ve linked to this page from another page in our site please forward the details using

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I think the only way to get this info is for some of us to ask our MPs to request it. Freedom of information request? Parliametary question?

Ratican, thanks for posting the letters you received. They will help me frame my allegations in such a way that it's harder for them to deflect them.

Do you get the impression that we are starting to become a real nuisance?

[poppy01]

Ratican, thanks for posting the letters you received. They will help me frame my allegations in such a way that it's harder for them to deflect them.

Do you get the impression that we are starting to become a real nuisance?

I do hope so. If we are a nuisance now, just wait til after the JR

[seadog]

I think the only way to get this info is for some of us to ask our MPs to request it. Freedom of information request? Parliametary question?

"The Government does not accept that the scheme achieved its purpose since the 1987 legislation clearly applied to it. However, during 2007 both the number of scheme users and the amounts of tax involved reached such a high level that the Government decided that a legislative response was appropriate. By retrospectively clarifying the 1987 legislation, section 58 removes any doubt that this type of avoidance scheme does not work and never has done.

You ask why HMRC did not litigate some cases rather than making the changes that were made in the 2008 Finance Act. In my e mail of 6 October I tried to explain why the decision was made to clarify the law rather than litigate the issues. As I explained, during 2007 the rapid expansion of the scheme led the Government to the view that a legislative approach was appropriate."

Hi ratican

Thanks for posting these responses. They raise a few interesting points.

1:- They say the scheme clearly applies to it. That is a contradiction if later they say the retrospective legislation removes any doubt. One must conclude that there was some doubt that it applied or there would be no need to clarify it. As we have said many times before it is up to the courts to interpret teh legislation not the Government, unless that is you don't think you will win in court and you abuse your power by rewriting the legislation.

2:- They have failed to answer the question why they pulled the 4 cases scheduled for the commissioners. Is this something we could get revealed under the freedon of information act.

DR
Over the weekend I will chew over you draft letter and post some comments.

[Ratican]

Nothing to lose

Do you get the impression that we are starting to become a real nuisance?

To be honest - I don't really mind being a nuisance! It's becoming a bit like a hobby. I will keep writing the letters and sending the emails until I read something useful. I'm starting to feel a bit like my dad.

I wish I had more time to pull everything together and visit my MP armed with a very clear and specific dossier of accusations and questions.

Has anybody here met their MSP or MP? A good next step would be for one of us [with a sympathetic Member] to submit a FOI request. I haven't been able to meet with mine yet.

I think it can only help our cause to keep this topic in the minds of our MPs - it may help later on in the process.

I'm looking forward to wearing my teeshirt for the first time:
http://www.play.com/Clothing/T-Shirt...s/Product.html

[DonkeyRhubarb]

MP letter - version 2

I'm trying to make it as tight and consise as possible. I've continually got at the back of my mind that we're dealing with slippery eels here. Anything that can be wriggled out of will be. Only hard facts and figures will cut the mustard.

===================

Thank you for your letter of 6th January 2009, and for taking the matter up with Stephen Timms. As you say, there is probably little more that can be achieved now prior to the Judicial proceedings. However, I wonder if you would be so kind as to forward a copy of this letter to the Government, so that my allegations become a matter of public record.

Having studied the minutes of the Treasury and Finance Committee debates, it is clear that the Government were highly selective in their presentation of the facts. Both Committees specifically asked how long HMRC had been aware of the scheme but at no point did the Government disclose that:

1. as early as 2003, HMRC had already placed many users, including myself, under investigation. The figures I have obtained from my scheme promoter for the number of users under enquiry, and remember this is only one of several schemes operating at the time, are as follows:

2003 (tax year 01/02) – 200 users under enquiry
2004 (02/03) – 350 users
2005 (03/04) – 550 users

2. by the time the legislation was drafted, HMRC were already sitting on several thousand tax returns under enquiry

The Government claimed that this was only highlighted as a serious problem in 2007, yet HMRC had been actively investigating the scheme for the previous 4 years, and had sat back and watched the number of users grow throughout this period.

It is my contention that the Government deliberately conceiled details of HMRC’s investigation into the scheme from the Committees, in order to make the use of retrospection appear more legitimate.

Yours sincerely,

[KiwiGuy]

fruit

the whole thing is a bit silly really

its a bit like this

Guy goes up to a shop keeper and says "Im only going to pay you 10p for this apple"
Shop keeper goes "OK"
Guy goes "HERES YOUR 10p FOR THIS APPLE" waving his arms around in the air
Shop keeper goes "Ok, thanks"
Guy for the next 10 years goes up to the shop keeper saying "HERE 10p FOR THE APPLE" waving flags, painting a huge banner, jumping up and down
Still the shopkeeper goes "Ok, thanks for your custom sir"

Next Day the Guy gets a knock on the door from the police charging him for theft of the apple.

Shopkeeper says "No No No the apple is 20p, you owe me extra 10p per year for the last 10 years"

So the choice would be
1. if the Guy had known that the Apple was actually 20p would he have got it or would he have choosen a orange instead?

2.The shop keeper had known the price the whole time so should have been honest and said it from day one.

3. At the Market where he buys the apples, he says "All apples are 20p, retrospectively, its always been that way, and no one will be hurt from the change"

i think its going to go pair shape for the shopkeeper and hes bannanas thinking that he could get the money

hopefully and new stall owner will improve things

[nuffsaid]

FYI: Loan payments...

For anyone also considering this; I contacted TQ about settling the loan payments that I received since mid-March, and here's how to do it...

I note your comment about the loan payment from the Rathowen Business Benefit Trust, please inform John Cuddy's team in the IOM that you want the loans written off and they will become taxable income in 2008/2009.


DR: Perhaps put this on the front page?

[Ratican]

Loan Scheme

Can anybody help??
I was on the loan scheme from April 5th to Sept 31st 2008.
I now have Ltd company set up and billing from the 1st Oct.
I am getting emails from MP asking to complete beneficiary details. Does anybody know what this is and whether I should do it/have to do it?
Also - I may have missed some posts - why are there users wanting to write off the loans? Is the scheme not very sound?

Ta.