BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[ASB]

Does anyone know what they mean by 'manufactured dividends' ?
does this mean that they will now claim that my LTD Co dividends are not 'real' and force me to only operate under PAYE ??

Unless your particular circumstances are different from the norm then I doubt you need to worry.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/mpgn/index.htm

[PlaneSailing]

could the last person out please turn the light off:

http://www.pru.co.uk/guides_tools/ar...rospective-ta/

Meanwhile, a recent article for the Telegraph suggested that pensioners move abroad to avoid some of the taxes hitting them in Britain.

Hansard debate:

Taxation
Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax schemes have been closed as a result of the retrospective application of legislation since 1997. [298739]

Mr. Timms: Legislation enacted with retrospective effect (to a date before the announcement date) is rarely used. A separate record has only been kept since 2004.

Since December 2004 the following schemes have been closed by legislation enacted with retrospective effect:

Section 92 Finance Act 2006 (avoidance using options etc);

Section 58 Finance Act 2008 (UK residents and foreign partnerships);

Section 67 Finance Act 2009 (deductions for employee liabilities);

Section 68 Finance Act 2009 (employment loss relief); and

Section 61 and schedule 30 FA 2009 (Financial arrangements avoidance).

you sure rarely applies here Mr Timms, I can only assume this is another rare incident in that case??

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/529854b4-1...44feab49a.html

Dominic Stuttaford of Norton Rose, the law firm, said: “It is another example of HMRC [Revenue & Customs] passing legislation with retrospective effect to correct gaps in the old legislation.”

The move seemed “odd” to lawyers who believed that people ought to be taxed on the basis of what the law says, rather than what the Revenue thought it ought to say. But such moves served as warnings to those who tried to exploit loopholes, Mr Stuttaford added.

Bill Dodwell of Deloitte said the amendment was intrinsically sensible and unlikely to disrupt the market but should not have been retrospective.

“The rule of law surely means we should have the law for a particular period. It is not easy to understand why they thought it right to backdate it,” he said.

I know Frank Field (Lab) is opposed to retrospection. He was
all over the retrospective nature of MPs adjusted expense claims.

I wonder if he recalls which way he voted when these retrospective
changes went into the Finance Acts?

[smalldog]

nu labour

whenever Gordon spouts his policy crap its always to help the young and old people, so how does retrospectively taxing pensioners help them and protect his votes for the election!!! its laughable really...

[OnYourBikeGB]

It's OK, nothing to do with LTD companies.
...

The cynic (or is that realist?) in me makes me think that it is nothing to do with limited companies for now.

[moira under the stairs]

Sharpen thou arrows

Is this history repeating itself 'Timms' akin to the Sherriff of Nottingham ??

or Mel Brook's "The Sheriff of Rottingham"

we need to smile outwardly even though our insides are churning away.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

(1) 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...

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

(1) Stead/KPMG haven't had any response to their ECtHR application, so HMRC are probably not even formally aware of it. So why haven't they taken Stead cases to the Commissioners? Ditto for deGraaf, who initially applied for a JR but then withdrew it. They are now relying on our case but there is nothing formally tieing them to us.

In a sense, there is also nothing tieing you or I to Huitson, other than we used the same promoter. PwC's challenge on behalf of Shiner is equally applicable to us. HMRC may be reluctant to enforce collection while any challenge to s.58 is with the higher courts. However, I wouldn't rule out them trying something in the coming weeks.

(2) Montpelier's legal team have made no comment to me about PwC's chances or the strength of their argument.

[BolshieBastard]

The comments by COIT should be a warning shot to anyone who doesnt operate as an IT contractor by PAYE.

It amazes me the smarmy comments by some posters such as AtW and one or two others about BN66. The way HMRC are acting, there is absolutely nothing to stop those dreaming up news ways to tax us, to introduce some retrospective tax law regarding dividends we take from out ltd co's.

Any person working via their own ltd co really should be joining us in the fight against BN66 even if they dont agree with the scheme we used.

This, has now become a wider issue. Its now also about the use of retrospective changes in tax legislation. No one should be under any illusion that if HMRC get their way with this, it will be the thin end of the wedge.

[PlaneSailing]

The comments by COIT should be a warning shot to anyone who doesnt operate as an IT contractor by PAYE.

It amazes me the smarmy comments by some posters such as AtW and one or two others about BN66. The way HMRC are acting, there is absolutely nothing to stop those dreaming up news ways to tax us, to introduce some retrospective tax law regarding dividends we take from out ltd co's.

Any person working via their own ltd co really should be joining us in the fight against BN66 even if they dont agree with the scheme we used.

This, has now become a wider issue. Its now also about the use of retrospective changes in tax legislation. No one should be under any illusion that if HMRC get their way with this, it will be the thin end of the wedge.

Looking at Lurch's list of taxes, we seem to be well passed the thin end.

[smalldog]

(1) Stead/KPMG haven't had any response to their ECtHR application, so HMRC are probably not even formally aware of it. So why haven't they taken Stead cases to the Commissioners? Ditto for deGraaf, who initially applied for a JR but then withdrew it. They are now relying on our case but there is nothing formally tieing them to us.

In a sense, there is also nothing tieing you or I to Huitson, other than we used the same promoter. PwC's challenge on behalf of Shiner is equally applicable to us. HMRC may be reluctant to enforce collection while any challenge to s.58 is with the higher courts. However, I wouldn't rule out them trying something in the coming weeks.

(2) Montpelier's legal team have made no comment to me about PwC's chances or the strength of their argument.

DR thats not possible as you know while our CN's are in appeal.

[VictorValiant]

Some Sense Prevails

"NORWAY: Supreme Court has overturned Norwegian Parliament's plan on transition to new shipping tonnage taxation system. Plan to apply change retrospectively has been removed and new tax assessment has to be carried out."