BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Off shore you can!

I wonder if he's paying his "fair share" of tax?

I have no doubt he is complying with the letter of the law with all his complex offshore arrangements.

But as we know that's no longer sufficient.

DR, it must be sufficient. Otherwise, HMRC selling off it's freehold to an offshore Company in Bermuda that reduced the quote on the deal by the amount of tax it saved and within the letter of the law would be a real problem.

For those who can't remember, it was a deal with a company called Mapeley. And here is what a Treasury Committee said of it at the time (2003):

“In February 2003 the Committee produced a report on the handling of the joint Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise STEPS PFI project. The project involved the transfer of some 600 Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise properties to part of the Mapeley Group, an offshore company registered in Bermuda, in return for an up front cash payment of £220 million, together with a further £150 million in the form of discounted service prices.”

It went further and said:

“The Committee accepted “that Mapeley was entitled to minimise its tax liabilities and the evidence that the avoidance of tax in this case was legal.”2 However, the Committee considered that “the Inland Revenue, responsible for implementing the Government’s policy of reducing tax avoidance, should of all departments have been alert to the difficulties of being party to a deal that transferred ownership of its properties to an offshore company.”

It added:

“The Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise maintained that procurement law
prevented them excluding bidders from using an offshore tax structure and that that had been confirmed by advice from leading Counsel. The Committee recommended that procurement guidance be reviewed to ensure that it contains comprehensive advice on this matter. The Committee also recommended that “further advice is sought and published so as to clarify whether it is possible to exclude bidders using an offshore tax haven in similar circumstances, and to restrict final beneficial ownership to companies registered in countries that have signed the agreement on Government Procurement. In particular, advice should be sought as to whether specifying this exclusion in the tender advertisement makes it lawful.”

So there you have it. Clear as Bermuda sand soiled by British beach dirt!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Keep voting in the Poll

All you need to do is register then cast your vote.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/register.php

You never know, it might get mentioned in high places.

[SantaClaus]

All you need to do is register then cast your vote.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/register.php

You never know, it might get mentioned in high places.

Hi DR,

What we need is a little counter in £££s to show how much of the (alledged) 200 million, the Revenue wont be collecting.

[SantaClaus]

Top rate of income tax under Labour in the 1970s was 83%.

Because of surcharges on unearned income (investments), it was possible to pay a marginal rate of tax of 98%.

As in the 1970s, what they are doing now is purely political. The revenue raised is inconsequential.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...is-Healey.html

Wow! I thought the 98% rate was a joke when I first read it.
Then I realised it was true

[OnYourBikeGB]

I wonder if he's paying his "fair share" of tax?

I have no doubt he is complying with the letter of the law with all his complex offshore arrangements.

But as we know that's no longer sufficient.

This should amuse everyone greatly:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...s-money-solved

I like the line :

'A little-known loophole in UK company law is being used by Tony Blair to keep his finances secret, the Guardian can disclose.'

Of course, I'm not implying that he is hiding the sources of his income because he's avoiding tax, he must be doing because ... umm ... hang on ... umm ... errr ... Well, God moves in mysterious ways. I'm sure every penny is declared and fully taxed to the max, I mean, Tony Blair would never do anything illegal, would he?

One rule for them, one rule for us.

[normalbloke]

Its truely amazing isnt it? I had an 'exchange' with someone posting as AtW in the General forum.

Obviously a troll of sorts. His tax affairs are squeaky clean. If I read his diatribe correctly, he instructs his accountant not to tax up tax advantages as he doesnt want any hassle from HMRC.

It hasnt dawned on him yet that with retrospective changes etc, even his current legal within the law definition tax affairs may be changed retrospectively in the future.

Oh and he thinks we're a bunch of 'cheats' and 'pisstakers.'

Nice chap!

Yes.. I think the name of the thread sums up the naive idiots that moralise on it.

"Whats the big deal with BN66?" (in the 'General' thread).

..and I shamefully admit I rose to the trolls and posted a reply to AtW who seemed the most sanctimonious 'individual' on there.

[Buzby]

Echr

has anyone had a search through previous cases gone to ECHR?

I found this url : http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/se...&skin=hudoc-en but I get hundreds of cases when I search on 'retrospective tax'

[loser]

Mystery of Bliar's tax affairs

I wonder if he's paying his "fair share" of tax?

I have no doubt he is complying with the letter of the law with all his complex offshore arrangements.

But as we know that's no longer sufficient.

The Guardian actually ran a reader competition last December, inviting people who claimed to be able to understand TB's tax affairs to write in and explain them. The article goes onto describe TB's "Windrush" structure. Apparently twelve different legal entities are involved. Clearly this structure is perfectly above board and legal (at least at the moment, probably, but it could turn out to have been an invalid structure all along..). Obviously this will help to ensure that TB is able to contribute his fair share of tax.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...blair-finances

[SLB]

What is going on??!!??

I've been reading all the reports in the press recently - including all the links on this site - about people obeying the law as it stands, yet still getting f***ed over by HMRC and it is truly appalling. Their latest offering about not letting tax advisors give tax advice would be a comedy sketch if it weren't so serious!
How on earth they are getting away with it at the moment is beyond me - nu liebour really are utter scum and will ruin the economy of this country because they just don't understand basic economics or human nature. . .and now add to that list the rule of law!

The other worrying thing is that if opinion polls are to be believed, 30% of the population would vote liebour if there was an election tomorrow. Who are these people?! Who actually want another 5 years of this unremitting s**t?!

[bananarepublic]

Strictly speaking this isn't retrospection

I don't know if this has been posted yet, apologies if so, but I think that an awful lot more people have suddenly got a lot more interested in retrospective taxation:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8519803.stm

Don't know what the big deal is around this. The domicle tax laws seem a bit of a mess admitedly but what has happened here isn't the same as what has happened to us.

Basically what has happened is that the domicle rules have always been a bit of a grey area and it has been left up to the courts to decide how the rules should be applied, which they have duly done. Unfortunately a lot of people have assumed the rules worked in a certain way and it now appears that they were wrong all along [ until the supreme court rules ... ]

If only it was the same in our case. It would be great if we had been given the same chance, not have had it overridden by s 58. Lets not forget that assuming we win our HR challenge and the retrospection is removed, we will more than likely still have to convince the courts that the scheme worked.