BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[BrilloPad]

http://www.wealthbriefing.com/html/a...?article=17545

If anyone has registered and got the full article could they post it up please.

ta.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If anyone has registered and got the full article could they post it up please.

ta.

For some reason, I didn't have to register to view it.

http://www.wealthbriefing.com/html/a...?article=17545


UK Tax Consultancy Gears Up To Fight Government On Retrospective Legislation

Wendy Spires
Assistant Editor

London-based tax consultancy NT Advisors has launched a campaign to fight the UK government’s plans to introduce retrospective changes to tax law, arguing that such legislation would threaten the integrity of the tax system and undermine the UK’s reputation as a good place to do business.

NT Advisors’ concerns were prompted by the government’s recent decision to make a piece of anti-tax avoidance legislation – which was announced on 1 April – active from 12 January. Not only was no clear warning of the decision to backdate given, notes the firm, but such retrospective legislation may also have human rights implications.

The tax planning industry has had to cope with a barrage of changes to taxation rules over recent years, with regards the use of trusts for example, and it seems likely that cash-strapped governments globally will continue to clamp down on perceived loopholes in their search for revenue.

“We are very concerned about the government’s unwarranted and inappropriate use of retrospective legislation. The UK’s tax system should be clear and robust and using retrospective legislation threatens its credibility,” said NT Advisors’ Anthony Mehigan.

“These knee jerk decisions create a climate of uncertainty… Retrospective legislation takes that consistency and certainty away and we urge the government to take a second look and amend the Finance Bill so that the new rules are applied prospectively.”

[BrilloPad]

For some reason, I didn't have to register to view it.

http://www.wealthbriefing.com/html/a...?article=17545


UK Tax Consultancy Gears Up To Fight Government On Retrospective Legislation

London-based tax consultancy NT Advisors has launched a campaign to fight the UK government’s plans to introduce retrospective changes to tax law, arguing that such legislation would threaten the integrity of the tax system and undermine the UK’s reputation as a good place to do business.

NT Advisors’ concerns were prompted by the government’s recent decision to make a piece of anti-tax avoidance legislation – which was announced on 1 April – active from 12 January. Not only was no clear warning of the decision to backdate given, notes the firm, but such retrospective legislation may also have human rights implications.

The tax planning industry has had to cope with a barrage of changes to taxation rules over recent years, with regards the use of trusts for example, and it seems likely that cash-strapped governments globally will continue to clamp down on perceived loopholes in their search for revenue.

“We are very concerned about the government’s unwarranted and inappropriate use of retrospective legislation. The UK’s tax system should be clear and robust and using retrospective legislation threatens its credibility,” said NT Advisors’ Anthony Mehigan.

“These knee jerk decisions create a climate of uncertainty… Retrospective legislation takes that consistency and certainty away and we urge the government to take a second look and amend the Finance Bill so that the new rules are applied prospectively.”

Many thanks.

So we are not the only ones hit with retrospection. Should the government win against us then it really is the thin end of the wedge.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Many thanks.

So we are not the only ones hit with retrospection. Should the government win against us then it really is the thin end of the wedge.

I think it's highly unlikely the Govt will climb down over the latest retrospection given the impending JR over s58.

I suspect HMRC saw this as their last opportunity to chance their arm again before a change of Govt. The Conservatives would not have sanctioned this or s58.

Even if "NT Advisors" start proceedings now, they are bound to be affected by our JR and the JCHR scrutiny which could set a precedent, whichever way it goes.

I am going to try and make contact with this company to share info etc.

[ASB]

As far as I know, this is common practice. The backbench MPs just tow the party line on some legislation and are told to vote in favour / not in favour.

I doubt they'd have seen ruining the lives of families as something that they should've taken any interest in

They are not allowed to vote without without attending. However they will normally "pair". The obvious system being when you "vote" with your pair you will be voting with the government, your pair "against" thus the net effect is nil and neither of them need to attend. Normally you couldn't pair with a 3 line whip. However the system did fall into disrepute after the election of the labour government since it turned out a number of new labour mps were paired but still voted..... I guess the whips sorted it out.

[Clownfish]

Thanks for this thread

Hi all,
I de-lurked sometime back in November, but after one post, I had difficulty posting and didn't really have enough to add to the discussion to warrant chasing access again. I don't check everyday, but its good to know the fight continues.

Used montp for a couple of years, now living abroad for last two years.

Just wanted to say thanks to DonkeyRhubarb in particular, and all the other regular contributors, BrilloPad, ASB, emigre, and well, everyone else.

Its nice to know that we are not suffering the stress alone, and even better to know that any victories and celebrations are also shared.

Thanks again folks

clownfish

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Please continue to check the forum

Things are probably going to slow down for a while, since it will probably be several months before we get a date for the JR.

I am in regular contact with the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and will post updates as and when I hear anything.

Some of us are continuing to pursue Freedom of Information requests which may also bear fruit.

However, I think it's important that we stick together, as you never know when something might kick off. HMRC may have gone quiet recently but that doesn't mean we should let down our guard.

Please try and make a point of checking the forum every couple of weeks or so. This thread will continue all the way through to the JR, so if you bookmark it you won't miss anything.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...al-review.html

Finally, I would like to thank everyone for all their help over the past few months. Sometimes it feels like we have been banging our heads against a brick wall but I think we have made genuine progress and got the attention of a lot of influential people.

Keep the faith!
DR

[macdat]

Feed / WebSlice ?

Does anyone know how to add a feed, webslice or other such thing to get notified if the thread gets updated ?

thanks

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Finance Bill debate on this year's retrospective legislation

Our case and Jane Kennedy get a mention.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/20...009-06-16a.8.0

Health Warning
Do not read this if you suffer from high blood pressure as Timms' responses could make you very ill.

[helen7]

Our case and Jane Kennedy get a mention.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/20...009-06-16a.8.0

Health Warning
Do not read this if you suffer from high blood pressure as Timms' responses could make you very ill.

One interesting point from Mr Timms

Friend’s statement in 2004 warned that where we became aware of arrangements that attempt to frustrate our intention that employers and employees should pay the proper amount of tax, we would introduce legislation to close them down, where necessary from 2 December 2004. It therefore remains the Government’s view that in rare cases like this it is appropriate for us to act retrospectively to make sure that abusive schemes are closed down rapidly and effectively.

Since our scheme has been backdated 21 years, his statement above is incorrect and misleading.

If the legislation was amended so that ours was only backdated to Dec 2004, that would reduce my liability by well over 100k.