BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[BolshieBastard]

There are approximately 30 million taxpayers in this country and BN66 affects less than 0.01%.

If the courts agree that this was a highly contrived and wholly artificial avoidance scheme with no commercial purpose, then they may well conclude that the interference was justified in the interests of the 99.99% majority of taxpayers who did not try to avoid paying their taxes.

The courts will have to balance infringing the rights of a tiny minority against the wider interests of society as a whole.

You truely are a muppet of the highest order if you think 99.99% of tax payers dont try to avoid paying 'their' taxes every day of the week.

I bet even you have asked a builder, joiner, electrician etc how much a job would cost if done 'for cash'!

Even your political masters have been claiming loads of non realistic or irrelevant 'expense' out of the public purse.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Transparent Interference - A Juxtoposition

There are approximately 30 million taxpayers in this country and BN66 affects less than 0.01%.

If the courts agree that this was a highly contrived and wholly artificial avoidance scheme with no commercial purpose, then they may well conclude that the interference was justified in the interests of the 99.99% majority of taxpayers who did not try to avoid paying their taxes.

The courts will have to balance infringing the rights of a tiny minority against the wider interests of society as a whole.

Your level of engagement via communication is actually far worse than HMRC on this matter. 2 posts in all this time? BTW, there are 60 million "potential" tax payers in this country. Approx 28.9 million income tax payers (of which nearly 25% are employed the the Government), 1.4 million CGT payers and 600,000 IHT payers.

And look at this (source ONS):

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/was...overnment.html

But what about some many other millions who live here and pay no tax at all? Interference as you state appears to be rife.

We have a population of working people that exceeds those who pay tax. Your 99.99% seems like a straw. So either get your figures right or don't quote. I hope you don't think that 200M quid is at stake as well do you?

"Interference". Hmmm, now that's a new one. I think you should tread carefully here.

And just in case you missed it, this is not about whether a specific tax should be paid, it's about whether you should be asked to pay and then some, 7 years after you declared 100% openly your reason for its relief - TRANSPARENTLY.

As the then Secretary-General of the OECD commented:

"Tax evasion is easy: it involves breaking the law. By tax avoidance OECD means unacceptable avoidance ... This can be contrasted with acceptable tax planning. What is critical is transparency."

And the UK "follows" the OECD lines on this.

Go wrap your Xmas presents, if you have any to give...

For all the rest of you who have been 100% transparent in your Returns on this matter and indeed your comments here, have a Merry Christmas and ignore those who have been opaque on this until now. A Human Right is to be honest, open and transparent and as a result are afforded the right to enjoy the property and possessions afforded from this. I hate to think what the opposite is. But I fear there are people out there living in this context who will try to prove otherwise come January 19th. God help you, but nonetheless I hope you also have a Merry Christmas as to suggest otherwise might move me towards the same tranche of people like yourselves and I'm sure that to suggest such would be against your Human Right.

Happy Christmas everyone and I hope your tax contributions to 25% of the working population makes you feel you are getting value for money.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Your level of engagement via communication is actually far worse than HMRC on this matter. 2 posts in all this time?

To be fair to him, its right before Christmas and he probably typed it up on one of his many tea breaks. He's only just finished sticking all those second class stamps on the brown envelopes. Its a busy time of the year for Hector and his trolls.

[Toocan]

There are approximately 30 million taxpayers in this country and BN66 affects less than 0.01%.

If the courts agree that this was a highly contrived and wholly artificial avoidance scheme with no commercial purpose, then they may well conclude that the interference was justified in the interests of the 99.99% majority of taxpayers who did not try to avoid paying their taxes.

The courts will have to balance infringing the rights of a tiny minority against the wider interests of society as a whole.

But then it is acknowledged that it was neither contrived nor wholly artificial - if it had been then there would have been no need for retrospective legislation.

Would the 99.9% of taxpayers like the idea that the government/HMRC had the power to introduce a tax after the event? Would it be right to ask every worker in the UK to pay a "back tax" of say 10% on their last 8 years income to help the current governments debt problems?

Would you like to do that?

I note that you acknowledge that s.58 is an infringment of our rights. Perhaps now is a good time to quote Pastor Martin Niemöller as you appear to believe it is okay to pick on minorities.

[Lazylobster]

Mmmmmm, few days to the JR hearing and all of a sudden bn66sceptic pops up and starts bleating like a lamb off to the slaughter house.

Smells like a HMCE troll or some other nasty noxious substance.

Back to your cave troll. . . . . .

[bn66sceptic]

Something doesn’t add up

You lot make out like it’s a no-brainer that BN66 breaches human rights.

If it was so clear cut why pray tell would HMRC risk introducing legislation that could be overturned by the courts?

Surely the advice HMRC received at the time would have highlighted such an obvious deficiency and, even if their legals had overlooked it, it would still have had to get past the Government’s law officers.

So either:-

1. HMRC and Government failed to spot an obvious fatal flaw (cockup)
2. HMRC and Government knew full well it contravened the human rights act (conspiracy)
3. it is not at all obvious that BN66 breaches human rights

Which do you think is the more likely?

[PlaneSailing]

You lot make out like it’s a no-brainer that BN66 breaches human rights.

If it was so clear cut why pray tell would HMRC risk introducing legislation that could be overturned by the courts?

Surely the advice HMRC received at the time would have highlighted such an obvious deficiency and, even if their legals had overlooked it, it would still have had to get past the Government’s law officers.

So either:-

1. HMRC and Government failed to spot an obvious fatal flaw (cockup)
2. HMRC and Government knew full well it contravened the human rights act (conspiracy)
3. it is not at all obvious that BN66 breaches human rights

Which do you think is the more likely?

I thought you'd read the JCHR minutes? If you had, then you'd know the
answer to the question.

As an aid :

"The representations we have received argue that the changes made by s. 58 of the 2008 Act are in breach of Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR because they are retrospective in effect and no adequate justification for such retrospectivity has been provided."

"In the absence of a satisfactory justification for retrospection, there is therefore at least an arguable breach of Article 1 Protocol 1."

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If it was so clear cut why pray tell would HMRC risk introducing legislation that could be overturned by the courts?

You’re obviously not HMRC or you wouldn’t have said that.

HMRC are chancers.

Normally they only pursue a case if there is at least a 50/50 chance of success but where something could set a wider principle/precedent they will set the bar much much lower.

It’s all about the prize. If the prize is lucrative enough they will try any old crap. They plainly demonstrated this with the Arctic Systems case.

Clawing back several hundred £million from 3000 people and scaring off others from using these types of scheme would certainly be a worthy prize. But setting the precedent for further retrospective legislation would make it even more glittering.

The only difference in this case is that HMRC have used Parliament, instead of the courts, to play their game of Roulette. And this could come back to bite them on the arse.

So, to answer your question, yes I do believe HMRC were fully aware of the human rights "fatal flaw" in their proposal but they decided it was worth a punt.

[Zanzibar]

You lot make out like it’s a no-brainer that BN66 breaches human rights.

If it was so clear cut why pray tell would HMRC risk introducing legislation that could be overturned by the courts?

Reminds me of the classic Alan Partridge line while interviewing a lawyer and asking why anybody needs them...

"Surely the Police would never arrest somebody who is innocent"

[poppy01]

You lot make out like it’s a no-brainer that BN66 breaches human rights.

If it was so clear cut why pray tell would HMRC risk introducing legislation that could be overturned by the courts?

Surely the advice HMRC received at the time would have highlighted such an obvious deficiency and, even if their legals had overlooked it, it would still have had to get past the Government’s law officers.

So either:-

1. HMRC and Government failed to spot an obvious fatal flaw (cockup)
2. HMRC and Government knew full well it contravened the human rights act (conspiracy)
3. it is not at all obvious that BN66 breaches human rights

Which do you think is the more likely?

1 & 2