BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[Cantthinkof1]

Good observation Toocan. HMRC will probably ask for legislation to generate a 1 billion quid tax levy at the airport as "departure tax".

Oops, given them an idea...

... Backdating it many years as well (of course!!!) ...

[OnYourBikeGB]

Anyone know if our appeal has been lodged yet? It was to be within a couple of weeks of the JR, wasn't it?

[OnYourBikeGB]

While there are appeals to the decision it would be difficult for HMRC to collect any tax - this is because it is still in the Courts (which overrules any HMRC policy). In addition, there are other JR's in the pipeline at the present time.

It is interesting that Stephen Timms has not made his usual victory speech - could this be because this matter has become a political hot potato?

I suspect that its more of an advantage to them to keep us in the dark if they can't pursue us just yet. If they were to confirm that they weren't coming after us immediately, it would lessen the pressure. More smoke and mirrors I suspect. At the moment, they have us in a corner, why should they even give us glimpse of a relief? (obviously, I mean that's their perspective, not mine). They want the money, if they can't have it right now, the best they can do is make us sweat as heavily as they can. That's why I'm getting everything together now in case I need to pay, and closing my mind to it. That way they can play their little games, and I can get on with my life.

I still think this is a potentially huge own goal for them. Time will tell.

[silver_lining]

I suspect that its more of an advantage to them to keep us in the dark if they can't pursue us just yet. .............

I still think this is a potentially huge own goal for them. Time will tell.

On that note; I am guessing the PWC/ Stead challenges in no way affect HMRC's ability to collect tax from MP users ? e.g. if the COA application where to be rejected and MP did not pursue ECtHR (noting they said they would take it that far).....

also out of curiosity, DR, you are probably best placed to answer this one...

without compromising anyones legal case, have MPs legal eagles given any informal comment on PWCs chances or even opinion on the argument....?

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Retroflections

During my holiday I had some reflections on retrospections (hence the subject matter...).

The JR appears to sum up the situation as follows:

Taxation is about "fair share" and "social policy". The Judge saw a case on both sides but failed to rule on anything explicit to do with the written law so only ruled on the 2 tree hugging, green haired weard beard topics that are as easy to pin down as nailing jelly to a wall.

Is it me or did the JR simply not want to deal with the legal issues upon which the entire tax system may depend in favour of the easier morality line?

From this, written tax law and technical arguments are thrown out of the window in favour of rather fluffy, hard to define "opinions" and "interpretations" of what the law can mean. And on such a matter as serious as retrospective tax which will bankrupt many and is causing huge distress to many families and leaves the door wide open to "abuse" of the law by the very vague Socially Hypothetical Interpretation of Tax then anyone who is not merely employed under PAYE and PAYE alone can find themselves many years later being targetted by the sandle wearers for a crime they didn't commit under written law on the basis of what is interpreted to be socially correct and fair some years later?

Well, the Magna Carta was the instrument from which most civilised societies drew their laws and freedoms. Now it appears to be replaced by A La Carte where you can pick what you like when you like as you see fit.

Is it me or does this way of ruling appear rather odd?

I presume we still have a Judiciary somewhere in the country where technical legal facts are ruled upon as opposed to some moral compass?

If not, we're off to Hell in a handcart.

Must have sun stroke because this appears way too obvious!

[SantaClaus]

While there are appeals to the decision it would be difficult for HMRC to collect any tax - this is because it is still in the Courts (which overrules any HMRC policy). In addition, there are other JR's in the pipeline at the present time.

It is interesting that Stephen Timms has not made his usual victory speech - could this be because this matter has become a political hot potato?

Could it be because Stephen Timms lied to parliament?

Oh, and message to Mal-vio (or is that Italian for bad way?), no-one likes a smart-ass.

[smalldog]

predictions

Mal, as you seem to have an uncanny way of predicting whats going to happen Im assuming you also predicted my divorce due to this pressure?

[malvolio]

Look I really do understand the pressures you guys are under and you genuinely have my every sympathy. I'm not trying to point fingers or show how clever I've been but merely keep you aware of how the other side is probably viewing things. The judgement was exactly as expected as is the way forward., which now has a reasonable chance of success since it is now about the rights or wrongs of BN66 rather than the precise wording of the law; if it stayed as the latter you'd have no chance.

So lay off the personal attacks, OK?

[Toocan]

On that note; I am guessing the PWC/ Stead challenges in no way affect HMRC's ability to collect tax from MP users ? e.g. if the COA application where to be rejected and MP did not pursue ECtHR (noting they said they would take it that far).....

It absolutely affects their ability to collect any tax based on this law. If any JR applicaiton succeeds then they will have difficulty. Therefore all of the applicaitons will have to be brought to completion before they could attempt collection. The case may be different with the European Court - should we get there.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Look I really do understand the pressures you guys are under and you genuinely have my every sympathy. I'm not trying to point fingers or show how clever I've been but merely keep you aware of how the other side is probably viewing things. The judgement was exactly as expected as is the way forward., which now has a reasonable chance of success since it is now about the rights or wrongs of BN66 rather than the precise wording of the law; if it stayed as the latter you'd have no chance.

So lay off the personal attacks, OK?

Mal,

Been on hols so no idea who you are and have only read a few of the related posts. As per your note above, I would disagree in so much that it is about both the rights and wrongs of BN66 and the precise wording of the law.

In the former case, I don't have to go over ground already well trodden. In the latter, it is very much the case that the precise wording of the law counts greatly and even by HMRC's own admissions via TN63, the lack of litigation and the comments in the JR, the letter of the law is very much at the heart of this and why HMRC did not act accordingly sooner.

I agree that personal attacks are not appropriate from anywhere. I can fully understand those here who have the pressure on them to not welcome kindly what can be perceived as "I told you so" comments, but I can understand and accept such comments when made.

So for one, I think there are issues both with the rights and wrongs of BN66 and the lack of the wording of the law which has brought us to this juncture.

The idea that after all these years we've arrived at a position of social policy and "fair share" as the basis on which peoples lives will depend does not appear to me to be the modus operandi of a certain, predictable and stable legal system.

You're entitled to your views of course but please remember the personal sensitivities of those involved.

I have not met anyone who noted a few years ago that social policy and fair share formed the basis of our tax system via statute.

Anyone?