BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[DonkeyRhubarb]

HMRC's case

I wonder if this will still form the thrust of their defence?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/718788-post682.html

We can advise you that HMRC has responded to the Judicial Review proceedings stating that Section 58 is not incompatible with the UK Human Rights Act for the following main reasons:-

(a) There is no unfairness to taxpayers who used the scheme because they sought to reduce their tax liabilities below what other people not using the scheme paid.

(b) HMRC had made both the general public and professional market well aware of its view in 1987 that “partner” and “member of a firm” included any person entitled to a share of the profits of a partnership. HMRC say that this obviously includes a life tenant of a trust where the trustee is a partner.

[Emigre]

I wonder if this will still form the thrust of their defence?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/718788-post682.html

We can advise you that HMRC has responded to the Judicial Review proceedings stating that Section 58 is not incompatible with the UK Human Rights Act for the following main reasons:-

(a) There is no unfairness to taxpayers who used the scheme because they sought to reduce their tax liabilities below what other people not using the scheme paid.

(b) HMRC had made both the general public and professional market well aware of its view in 1987 that “partner” and “member of a firm” included any person entitled to a share of the profits of a partnership. HMRC say that this obviously includes a life tenant of a trust where the trustee is a partner.

Obscurely

[PlaneSailing]

I wonder if this will still form the thrust of their defence?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/718788-post682.html

We can advise you that HMRC has responded to the Judicial Review proceedings stating that Section 58 is not incompatible with the UK Human Rights Act for the following main reasons:-

(a) There is no unfairness to taxpayers who used the scheme because they sought to reduce their tax liabilities below what other people not using the scheme paid.

(b) HMRC had made both the general public and professional market well aware of its view in 1987 that “partner” and “member of a firm” included any person entitled to a share of the profits of a partnership. HMRC say that this obviously includes a life tenant of a trust where the trustee is a partner.

I hope so. It seems ever so slightly flawed.

[SantaClaus]

I found this really funny:

http://www.contractoruk.com/news/004664.html

The real reason is more like this:

"Please tell us, please. Weve had a bad response and as we are such a bunch of incompetent F***wits our administration systems will never find you and weve got no chance of really finding out about your offshore assets unless you tell us..."

Makes Hartnett look like a right plonker.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I hope so. It seems ever so slightly flawed.

(a) is complete twaddle. Need I say more?

(b) if this were their view why didn't they put it in their own manual?

The following extract from the International Tax Manual dates back to at least 1993.

“The [1987] legislation is written in terms of United Kingdom residents who are partners but some tax planners have already suggested that it may be possible to develop the Padmore principle to apply to other situations where there are primary and secondary taxpayers for example where there is a trading trust with non-resident trustees and the profits pass to a United Kingdom resident life tenant. These further refinements will be kept under review.”

[Slobbo]

(a) is complete twaddle. Need I say more?

(b) if this were their view why didn't they put it in their own manual?

The following extract from the International Tax Manual dates back to at least 1993.

“The [1987] legislation is written in terms of United Kingdom residents who are partners but some tax planners have already suggested that it may be possible to develop the Padmore principle to apply to other situations where there are primary and secondary taxpayers for example where there is a trading trust with non-resident trustees and the profits pass to a United Kingdom resident life tenant. These further refinements will be kept under review.”

That statement there really does blow the argument that it is what they meant in 87. Why keep it under review if it was already law.

[smalldog]

we all know its bull, if argument b was legitimate then they would have just enforced it either with the commissioners or a test case...

can anyone take a guess why they did neither of these things????

hmmm let me think, is it maybe cos its not true perhaps??

[DonkeyRhubarb]

That statement there really does blow the argument that it is what they meant in 87. Why keep it under review if it was already law.

HMRC Press Release

This page has been removed, retrospectively, from the manual. Its removal will be treated as having always had effect.

[BolshieBastard]

HMRC Press Release

This page has been removed, retrospectively, from the manual. Its removal will be treated as having always had effect.

Hahahaha! Class!

[Richard Splash]

HMRC Press Release

This page has been removed, retrospectively, from the manual. Its removal will be treated as having always had effect.

I wonder when it was removed.... The same they decided to go chasing us I suppose... or after one of their meetings that they won't give us minutes to.... Tossers