BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[nuffsaid]

Oi! I most certainly do not disagree with that principle. All I said was how I thought the case would be argued and which view was likely to prevail.

Hee hee hee. Got you!

[silver_lining]

NorthernSoul is a mate of mine who does indeed work in IT, and is also qualified in law. .

I will avoid the easy jibes, but suffice to say, I think we have strong practising legal representation, theoretical opinions are nonethess welcome.....

we're stuffed .

negative comments; and please don't confuse my comment with blissful ignorance or in any way trying to discourage debate.... but if you make statements like this back it up with concrete fact.,,,

given we don't have the moral high ground and we are trying to overturn enacted leglisation, we are up against it and always were, but we are far from 'stuffed'.

but one thing that is sinking in is that the way the law works is not the way we or Montpelier want it to work .

This is for the courts to decide, not regular viewers of Ally McBeal.

but it is NOT the first retrospective law to be raised in the UK (wasn't Padmore retrospective?) - so we cannot complain about lack of precedent as such. .

I would politely encourage you or NS to read the forum in detail; Padmore has been done to death. I will reiterate the devil is the detail, Padmore is not the same thing.

My understanding is that judges can look at the intention of the law.

This is also true, but its a rather simplistic statement....

The intention of the tax system, as was clarified in our judgement is that everyone should pay their 'fair share'... so if intention or purposiveness is all the judicary need consider... we should have one line of leglisation.

Everyone should pay their fair share.... BN 666 2010

Also means my LLB will be much easier now.

All said and done I do value NSs comments; shame they are slightly one sided.... and lack some detail, background and foundation.

[kaiser78]

Could the election result have a say on which way this will go, especially if there is a change in government ?

[normalbloke]

Could the election result have a say on which way this will go, especially if there is a change in government ?

You may have missed my earlier posts - David Cameron is my MP
http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1059599
http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1066146

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

The inmates are running the asylum

Today I was pondering the 2 cornerstones of the new tax system that came out of the JR and the various diatribe from Timms & Co.

Fair share of tax
Social Policy


I wrote last night on reference to the former which illustrates that it represents some vague and unclear concept. Hmmm, not a good foundation for tax certainty.

In the latter case I realised I had no idea. I don't remember ever being advised to arrange my tax affairs according to Social Policy nor any SA Return telling me where to refer to it when calculating tax. So I'm stuck. I need(ed) to consider this aspect of tax legislation when considering my tax liabilities as it now appears after the JR. How can I do this? I don't even understand what it means. Fortunately, I have a friend who works in the surrreal world of equalities in the workplace. I always knew she was a little odd, but thought she was a good place to start.

What I have found is truly unbelievable. I cannot fathom it nor conclude that such could have been concocted by any lesser being than a weard beard (on pot).

Have a look at these:

http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/i...equalities.htm

http://www.polity.co.uk/shortintrodu...ean-sample.pdf


I've tried to get my head round it. I've tried to reference it in HMRC literature, I've tried to find it referenced in my tax code and I even tried to find it in last years ONS Treasury expenditure report. Nothing, nicht, nada, nowt.

I find this truly amazing since it appears to be 50% of the reasoning behind why BN66 retrospection is all fine and dandy and why there's been no breach of Human Rights. I'm confused.

But then it dawned on me. My learned wierd beard equalities friend says that winning and losing are replaced by the equality of participation. You can't tell a fatty he lost the 100m sprint because he has eaten too many mince pies as it will disadvantage him in life. You should congratulate him for taking part and remind him that the person who "won" was probably not as happy and content as he. If someone is too thick to add up because they spent their school years fondling Lisa Loamy Loins all day and therefore cannot get a job in accounting, then they must be encouraged to go on some public funded back to work program where they learn to spell the word 'abacus' before being given pre-chewed tax funded grub for lunch instead of being put on mine clearing duties in Iraq using a cricket bat to search them out.

As a result, BN66 reigns in anyone to a level which is the "norm". That is to say, somewhere between doing a 9-5 job of spinning beads on an abacus, a lardy lad failed sprinter who beats up mince pie makers as a result of him coming last in every sports day and an 18 year old fatty with a 12 month old kid from Brum fathered by what runs around Whipsnade Zoo on it's knuckles. Remember, it's the taking part that counts, not the winning.
Social Policy - Defined by the inmates and run from the asylum.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

You may have missed my earlier posts - David Cameron is my MP
http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1059599
http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1066146

Cameron also wrote to the JCHR, on behalf of another constituent, calling on the committee to scrutinise the legislation.

The Conservatives might oppose the legislation but I can't see them doing anything about it unless the courts rule were to rule it unlawful.

[kaiser78]

You may have missed my earlier posts - David Cameron is my MP
http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1059599
http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1066146

Apologies - there is quite a lot to trawl through on this one. Thanks for the links.

[screwthis]

Closure

Hello,

First post:

I received my closure letter today.
They worked out the tax I owed but there was no mention of interest.

Does anyone know, will they send me the interest once I have paid (I'm obviously not going to pay right now)?
Also, they mention 5% surcharge if not paid within 28 days and another 5% if not paid after 6 months.
So if we appeal and finally loose, will we be liable for the extra 10% on top of everything else?

[Plonker]

More retrospective tax legislation....

leading accountancy group has voiced concern about the apparent increasing use of retrospective action in the UK tax system.

The Chartered Institute of Taxation spoke out after the Treasury’s decision last week that tax rules on manufactured dividends would be amended with retrospection.

Speaking on Tuesday, Stephen Timms, financial secretary to the Treasury, announced that the new legislation would be introduced to apply from October 1st, 2007.

John Whiting, tax policy director at the CIOT, said: “We think it [retrospective legislation] damages the key principle of certainty in the tax system that is so important to its reputation and is inherently unfair.”

Evidencing fears that tax laws with retrospective effect are becoming more common, the institute pointed to the introduction of Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008, in March of that year.

According to the CIOT, the provision’s aim was to close an apparent loophole in the law but, most controversially, it has retrospective effect that goes back 20 years.

“We can understand that at times the government wants to take action to ‘confirm the general understanding of the tax system’ in the light of questions raised,” the institute said.

“However, this needs to be used with great caution: it must not dislodge the principle that the taxpayer is taxed on the wording of the legislation in place at the time of their actions. We are taxed on what legislation says, not what HMRC thinks it says”.

Reflecting on the issue, Mr Whiting added: “We need a clear statement as to when retrospection will be used and its boundaries – and parliament needs to consider such boundaries with care.”

Feb 16, 2010


HMRC can go bounce naked on a very large cactus.....

But come to think of it, they may enjoy that!

[swede]

Today I was pondering the 2 cornerstones of the new tax system that came out of the JR and the various diatribe from Timms & Co.

Fair share of tax
Social Policy


I wrote last night on reference to the former which illustrates that it represents some vague and unclear concept. Hmmm, not a good foundation for tax certainty.

In the latter case I realised I had no idea. I don't remember ever being advised to arrange my tax affairs according to Social Policy nor any SA Return telling me where to refer to it when calculating tax. So I'm stuck. I need(ed) to consider this aspect of tax legislation when considering my tax liabilities as it now appears after the JR. How can I do this? I don't even understand what it means. Fortunately, I have a friend who works in the surrreal world of equalities in the workplace. I always knew she was a little odd, but thought she was a good place to start.

What I have found is truly unbelievable. I cannot fathom it nor conclude that such could have been concocted by any lesser being than a weard beard (on pot).

Have a look at these:

http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/i...equalities.htm

http://www.polity.co.uk/shortintrodu...ean-sample.pdf


I've tried to get my head round it. I've tried to reference it in HMRC literature, I've tried to find it referenced in my tax code and I even tried to find it in last years ONS Treasury expenditure report. Nothing, nicht, nada, nowt.

I find this truly amazing since it appears to be 50% of the reasoning behind why BN66 retrospection is all fine and dandy and why there's been no breach of Human Rights. I'm confused.

But then it dawned on me. My learned wierd beard equalities friend says that winning and losing are replaced by the equality of participation. You can't tell a fatty he lost the 100m sprint because he has eaten too many mince pies as it will disadvantage him in life. You should congratulate him for taking part and remind him that the person who "won" was probably not as happy and content as he. If someone is too thick to add up because they spent their school years fondling Lisa Loamy Loins all day and therefore cannot get a job in accounting, then they must be encouraged to go on some public funded back to work program where they learn to spell the word 'abacus' before being given pre-chewed tax funded grub for lunch instead of being put on mine clearing duties in Iraq using a cricket bat to search them out.

As a result, BN66 reigns in anyone to a level which is the "norm". That is to say, somewhere between doing a 9-5 job of spinning beads on an abacus, a lardy lad failed sprinter who beats up mince pie makers as a result of him coming last in every sports day and an 18 year old fatty with a 12 month old kid from Brum fathered by what runs around Whipsnade Zoo on it's knuckles. Remember, it's the taking part that counts, not the winning.
Social Policy - Defined by the inmates and run from the asylum.

man, thats a belter .