BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[bn66sceptic]

I'll play the devil

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.

[scarlet-pimpernel]

it's been a while but a note to say thanks

hi everybody. havn't posted for a while but i'd like to say a few words

Thanks to you all for keeping my hopes up. I'm optimistic by nature and
whatever happens there will still be a tomorrow and future for me and i'll try
my best to make it one of my choosing.
Being an engr' of sorts much of what is said of the arguments they may or may not use goes right over my head and i do try to keep up but give me a spanner anytime and i'll show HMRC where they can stick it !

A merry xmas to you all and let's hope we have a bright future,

[SantaClaus]

I think if they had any silver bullet up their sleeve, we'd have known by now. This stage is about whether or not they had the right to make the legislation retrospective, correct me if I'm wrong, not about whether it was legal in itself. If they had a silver bullet to stop it here and now, it would have been fired. Instead, the best they could do is come up with a technical argument on why its a day late. If they could have stopped the JR, they would have done it to save face and the publics money. Let's not get ourselves too worried about what we don't know. They had plenty of time to think before the hearing for the JR, and they came up with sweet FA. We shouldn't underestimate our opponents, but we shouldn't distract ourselves with fear either.

If HMRC had a silver bullet up their sleeve, they wouldnt need to send trolls to post on this forum (like bn66sceptic) to spread fear and despondency.

Think about it everyone... now go and enjoy your mince pies and thats an order!

[bollox]

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.

seems to me that HMRC have done everything possible to stop the courts deciding on the legality of this scheme, hence the retrospection

sort of implies that they were less than confident of winning dont you think ?

[poppy01]

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.

[smalldog]

hilarious isnt it....according to sceptic 99.99% of people dont avoid paying their taxes!!!! Havent heard anything quite so hilarious in a while...you'd be lucky if that figure was 50% and I sincerely doubt its that high...., have you ever thought maybe if they were a bit more affordable and not such a con people wouldnt avoid paying them in the first place???

You might want to re read Tony Blairs financial arrangements, surely he's a great role model of nu labour and its morals towards paying taxes in favour of society...bunch of hypocrits

same old same old, the rich and upper classes pay hardly any tax, its the middle and lower classes that prop up society...

[PlaneSailing]

Hello again.

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.

So of the members of the non tax avoiding public, how many have ISAs ?
How many claim tax relief on rental mortgages?
How many have national savings cetrtificates?
How many 'gift' shares to their spouse (one for a certain MP we know)?

All of these are ways of avoiding tax.

Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Unfortunately for HMRC, the means can't be used to justify the ends.

The Human Rights Act doesn't have a £200M exemption or a legal limit on how many people's rights it's OK to infringe.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/13304.htm#a2

The Court of Human Rights has accorded States a very wide degree of latitude in relation to taxation under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, but it is not unlimited: the second paragraph must be construed in the light of the principle laid down in the first sentence of the Article. To be lawful under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, therefore, even a taxing measure … must satisfy the requirements of legal certainty and proportionality.

For an interference to be lawful under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, it must satisfy the qualitative requirements of accessibility and foreseeability: the law which imposes the tax must be published, intelligible and generally available in a form which enables the individual to organise their affairs knowing with reasonable certainty the consequences of acting in different ways.

[silver_lining]

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.

should have stayed a little longer schooling.

A legal system doesn't work that way my tiny minded friend.

[silver_lining]

I think if they had any silver bullet up their sleeve, we'd have known by now. This stage is about whether or not they had the right to make the legislation retrospective, correct me if I'm wrong, not about whether it was legal in itself. If they had a silver bullet to stop it here and now, it would have been fired. Instead, the best they could do is come up with a technical argument on why its a day late. If they could have stopped the JR, they would have done it to save face and the publics money. Let's not get ourselves too worried about what we don't know. They had plenty of time to think before the hearing for the JR, and they came up with sweet FA. We shouldn't underestimate our opponents, but we shouldn't distract ourselves with fear either.

They have already used a silver bullet ie legislation. I second any effort at positivity as long as it remains grounded.

I am not too worried and don't think we should be....