BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Diatribe

Of course, if they really believed that, they wouldn't have needed
to implement BN66 as they could have gone to court and won in 10 minutes.

IMHO BN66 is an admission that the scheme works.

Quite right PlaneSailing. Take yourself back circa 2002 and then read this diatribe. Not to act there and then via the methods listed in HMRC guidance docs, you're either incompetent or you know that it's BS and you'd lose. Either way, retrospection is no excuse for both. Imagine a world where every time HMRC show incompetence or know they're wrong, you get legislation applied retrospectively to make up for those deficiences.

The more you get info claiming the same as this diatribe, the more the question of "so why didn't you act when you could have?" becomes magnified.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Freedom of Information response

Did you all read this extract from the FOI diatribe?

"The problem was not confined to the UK/Jersey tax treaty and legislation was passed in the next Finance Act (No.2 of 1987) that made it clear that UK resident members of foreign partnerships could not use any of the UK’s treaties to avoid UK tax on their share of a foreign partnership’s income."

So BN66 then "clarifies" (to quote Clause 55 directly) what FA 1987 #2 had already made "clear"? Blimely, legislation to clarify clear legislation! Kind of as unprecendented in UK law as retrospection going back half a century!

Don't know about you, but this is as "clear" as mud.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Jack Straw speech at Labour Conference

Just a few minutes ago I heard Jack Straw state the following:

"We are the Government that introduced constitutional change. The Human Rights Act, Freedom of information...."

Is he on the same planet, let alone the same page as us? Human Rights? Well, lets see now. Freedom of information? Given the debacle over the FOI's about BN66 it seems a bit rich. So here's the true version of his statement.

"We are the excuse of a Government that imposed un-constitutional change. Abusing Human Rights, witholding of information...." Ah now that's better!

You couldn't make this up. Priceless!

[smalldog]

Is it worth highlighting our case to Mr Straw??

[TaxDude]

Did you all read this extract from the FOI diatribe?

"The problem was not confined to the UK/Jersey tax treaty and legislation was passed in the next Finance Act (No.2 of 1987) that made it clear that UK resident members of foreign partnerships could not use any of the UK’s treaties to avoid UK tax on their share of a foreign partnership’s income."

So BN66 then "clarifies" (to quote Clause 55 directly) what FA 1987 #2 had already made "clear"? Blimely, legislation to clarify clear legislation! Kind of as unprecendented in UK law as retrospection going back half a century!

Don't know about you, but this is as "clear" as mud.

Yes agree - if it was as straight forward as this why are we here 7 years later !!! with 7 years of punitive accrued interest.
Cant wait for our day in Court and get this sorted out one way or the other.

[Toocan]

...

During the debate on the 1987 Finance Bill, the then Financial Secretary, Norman Lamont, observed that all the measure did was “to restore the general understanding of the law to what it was before [the] decision of the High Court”. For that reason, the legislation was made fully retrospective (except for Mr Padmore).
...

This is a quote from one of the revenue's manual - unfortunantely it is also INCORRECT.

If one reads back through Hansard one will find that the retrospective change did not only EXCLUDE Mr Padmore but also ANYONE else who had used the same mechanism.

Be quite clear that those who benefited from the scheme did not have that benefit taken away. HMRC have not followed any precedent set by the Padmore case - with Padmore, those who benefitted from the law kept that benefit.

Here is the text from Hansard:

Mr. Blair If there are another three cases in train will they be treated in the same way as Mr. Padmore?

Mr. Lamont No, they will not. The people concerned have not taken the matter to court. The other partners of Mr. Padmore will obviously benefit if the case is successful, but others who have not taken the matter to court will not benefit.

Mr. John Townend Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the other three cases are not proceeded with while the Padmore case is resolved—the decision on that case given as the reason for not proceeding with the others—it is unfair that they should not be included in subsection (2) with Padmore?

Mr. Lamont My hon. Friend is right and I am sorry if I misled the Committee. They will be treated in the same way as Padmore.

Did HMRC miss this rather important detail?

[SantaClaus]

I suspect that Mr YouKnowWho (TM) is wishing he had picked a fight with someone else after reading the latest posts

[TheBarCapBoyz]

I suspect that Mr YouKnowWho (TM) is wishing he had picked a fight with someone else after reading the latest posts

And Mr "YouKnowWho" is probably relieved he is no longer on the case.

Mrs "YouMightNotKnowWho" in Middlesbrough, on the other hand, is probably thinking "wtf have I got myself in to here?"

[Ninja]

I've been trawling around the Net to find any dirt on Timms. All I can come up with so far is that he's a Labour Councillor for Newham too. The ruling Labour Council were very unpopular this year because they support St.Mowlem (property developers) in their contraversial plan to demolish the local Queen's Market, and erect a residential tower block. Boris Johnson was lobbied by the 'Save Queen's Market' campaigners, and the council's decision was overturned.

The constituents of East Ham might want to be reminded of this come May 2010 when Timms wants to be re-elected. His majority is only 13,000.

[PlaneSailing]

I've been trawling around the Net to find any dirt on Timms. All I can come up with so far is that he's a Labour Councillor for Newham too. The ruling Labour Council were very unpopular this year because they support St.Mowlem (property developers) in their contraversial plan to demolish the local Queen's Market, and erect a residential tower block. Boris Johnson was lobbied by the 'Save Queen's Market' campaigners, and the council's decision was overturned.

The constituents of East Ham might want to be reminded of this come May 2010 when Timms wants to be re-elected. His majority is only 13,000.

They only thing I've found is that he allocated some of his OVUM shares
to his wife.

From Mr. Timms...
"I was employed by Ovum Ltd from 1986—when it had about 12 employees—to 1994, and left the company when I was elected to the House of Commons. I acquired a shareholding in the company during that period. Around the time I left, the shareholding was divided equally between me and my wife, and about half of it was sold. Between the two of us, the holding we retained amounted to 3.7% of the company's value."


Not sure why you'd do such a thing. Couldn't possibly be a way to
avoid tax could it?