BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Schemes closed through retrospective legislation

Parliamentary answer from Timms. It would be useful to know what degree of retrospection was involved in some of these other schemes.

If ayone knows, PM me or drop me an email and I will update the post.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...0-12e.289825.h

• Section 92 Finance Act 2006 (avoidance using options etc); [Approx 1 year*]
• Section 58 Finance Act 2008 (UK residents and foreign partnerships); [7 years]
• Section 67 Finance Act 2009 (deductions for employee liabilities); [This is NOT retrospective]
• Section 68 Finance Act 2009 (employment loss relief); [2.5 months; announced 1st April, backdated to 12th January]
• Section 61 and schedule 30 FA 2009 (financial arrangements avoidance). [This does not appear to be retrospective but it so convoluted it's hard to tell.]

* Section 92 appears to have been announced in October 2005, and was backdated to Dawn Primarola's PBR statement in December 2004.

[smalldog]

interesting, I wonder if these will also be retrospective:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?i...-10-21a.57WS.1

basically no....a piece of anti-avoidance legislation thats prospective effective today:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/briefs/income...oss-relief.pdf

So, Mr Timms...who not retro for this too, scared of the ramifications are we!!!!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Section 92 Finance Act 2006

Does anyone know what happened over this? Did it ever get challenged or did the city boys pay up? Or did the banks compensate them for the loss?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...ney.budget2006

I think it was announced late 2005, and it was backdated to Dawn Primarola's PBR statement in December 2004.

Although it was retrospective it had been sort of signalled by the PBR statement.

[Slobbo]

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...9-16a.289115.h

"Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008 will apply to a small number of individuals..."

2000 small?

Willie is my man. I have had a very good response from him. 2 letters so far which basically say I am trying but getting no answers to your (our) questions. Well impressed with him thus far. I intend on sending him a thank you letter very soon.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Willie is my man. I have had a very good response from him. 2 letters so far which basically say I am trying but getting no answers to your (our) questions. Well impressed with him thus far. I intend on sending him a thank you letter very soon.

If only there were a few more MPs like him.

Out of interest, did you ask him to table a parliamentary question?

I'm wondering if this might be a better way of getting answers than using FOI which is a bit of a farce.

[Slobbo]

I have just used the template provided on here. If there is something more I can do then let me know. I am sure Willie would do something more.

[bollox]

If only there were a few more MPs like him.

Out of interest, did you ask him to table a parliamentary question?

I'm wondering if this might be a better way of getting answers than using FOI which is a bit of a farce.

Visited my MP last night to see if she could escalate things a bit (ask a question in the house)...

she said her hands are tied as its sub-judicy, apparently if she tables a question, some clerk asks if there are any asscociated legal proceedings and if so it gets kyboshed...

not sure how this applies to a Judicial review as opposed to a normal court case with a jury, but sounded plausible...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

she said her hands are tied as its sub-judicy, apparently if she tables a question, some clerk asks if there are any asscociated legal proceedings and if so it gets kyboshed...

not sure how this applies to a Judicial review as opposed to a normal court case with a jury, but sounded plausible...

She is wrong. Look at the date on this question, which was 2 months after the JR was granted.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...%22#g289115.q0

We have just asked an MP to table the following question, and I will report back if it is accepted.

"Section 58 of Finance Act 2008 has resulted in over 2,000 individuals receiving retrospective tax demands going back up to 7 years, and averaging £100,000. The justification for this measure was that previous legislation in 1987 was also retrospective. Can the minister tell me how many individuals received retrospective tax demands as a result of the 1987 legislation?"

[bananarepublic]

Does anyone know what happened over this? Did it ever get challenged or did the city boys pay up? Or did the banks compensate them for the loss?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...ney.budget2006

I think it was announced late 2005, and it was backdated to Dawn Primarola's PBR statement in December 2004.

Although it was retrospective it had been sort of signalled by the PBR statement.

The convention (Rees rules anyone?) is that retrospection is fine if pre warning has been given. Therefore, there was no problem with the government retrospectively closing a loophole in 2006 when they had previously signalled that such avoidance would be retrospectively closed. The retrospection only went back as far as the date when the warning was made.

However, in our case no such warning was ever given. I was under investigation for 2 1/2 years before HMRC said that they believed that I might owe them some tax (without specifying why), despite the fact they had known exactly how the scheme operated for probably around 4 years - and longer if their manuals are to be believed.

The government attack on us is unprecedented and as such the final result of the JR will be a landmark judgement. The ramifications of us losing will be felt far and wide ...

[ And yes, there have been lots of "highly artificial" tax avoidance schemes that were at least as "aggressive" as ours which were never closed retrospectively ]

[DonkeyRhubarb]

However, in our case no such warning was ever given.

The Government & HMRC are trying to claim that the 1987 legislation was the warning/signal. Since this was also retrospective, we should have expected the Government to act retrospectively again.

However, comparing s.58 with the 1987 legislation is like comparing apples and oranges. No-one received retrospective tax demands as a result of the 1987 Act and, in fact, Padmore and a few others were specifically excluded from the scope of the legislation. That is, they were allowed to keep their tax relief under the DTA.

This argument doesn't hold up to closer scrutiny.