BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[SantaClaus]

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

Didn't realise. Did he get a gold watch?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Brannigan

Apparently, he is still in overall charge of the case.

Middlesborough were only drafted in to help handle the caseload, after it was decided to pull everything back from local offices who hadn't got a clue.

According to Montp, Middlesborough have been really friendy and helpful, unlike the miserable chumps* in Manchester.

(*courtesy of Lord Mandelson)

[Fog]

Apparently, he is still in overall charge of the case.

Middlesborough were only drafted in to help handle the caseload, after it was decided to pull everything back from local offices who hadn't got a clue.

According to Montp, Middlesborough have been really friendy and helpful, unlike the miserable chumps* in Manchester.

(*courtesy of Lord Mandelson)

I do find the 'caseload' an interesting point. Was not the whole reason this ridiculous thing started because it did not impact many people??!! Haha - and now they have problems with caseload...... they have the investigative skills of a pea....

[smalldog]

they're basically gonna stall for time til the general election and leave the tories to sort out the mess for them....

[KiwiGuy]

when

is the human rights case being heard again, was it the 10th?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

is the human rights case being heard again, was it the 10th?

Tuesday 13th Oct.

[SantaClaus]

Apparently, he is still in overall charge of the case.

Well that's good in a way.

When the tulip hits the fan, I want to see him knee-deep in it

[centurian]

"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!

So if the 1987 legislation was so clear, why don't they use that? Why do they need BN66 then?

Have they tried to use the 1987 legislation in court. Did it fail. If it failed, then how can it be "clear".

What am I missing here

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So if the 1987 legislation was so clear, why don't they use that? Why do they need BN66 then?

Have they tried to use the 1987 legislation in court. Did it fail. If it failed, then how can it be "clear".

What am I missing here

No, they haven't tried to use the 1987 legislation.

Here are some quotes from the Government Minister Jane Kennedy in the debate.

Clearly, there was a lot of doubt about.

===============================

"That would take away a fundamental purpose of the clause, which is to put it beyond doubt that a wholly artificial avoidance scheme, which I will explain in a minute, does not work and never has done.

A fundamental purpose of the clause is to put it beyond doubt that a wholly artificial avoidance scheme designed to frustrate legislation passed by Parliament in 1987 to prevent such avoidance does not work, and never has.

Given the increasing numbers using the scheme, the rapidly growing amount of tax at risk and the wilful attempt to circumvent the clear purpose of the legislation and of the UK’s tax treaties, we consider it appropriate to legislate to provide retrospective clarification and to put the matter beyond doubt.

The measure clarifies rather than amplifies the scope of the 1987 legislation and puts beyond doubt what most people understand it to mean.

The legislation will end the doubt about that."

[BrilloPad]

Well that's good in a way.

When the tulip hits the fan, I want to see him knee-deep in it

I want the tulip to be 2 feet deep. And youknowwho to be in it. While doing a hand-stand.

HTH