BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[nuffsaid]

So what does happen if the CoA doesn't accept the case?

I guess we would have to rely on PWC and the others to win.

[ContractIn]

So what does happen if the CoA doesn't accept the case?

I asked this earlier but did not see any responses. If not in MTM comms next week will raise directly with them.

Also, more articles, FT, press association, all better than BBC . Google and you'll see, various figures used.

Also on text.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

To the BBC


Please ensure you take full account of what you publish. I think fair and unbiased reporting should also take the following into account. Please update your news page to reflect this:

All the taxpayers involved in the scheme declared the grounds for tax relief on every single tax return. Total transparency, not dodging as you put it.

In 2002, HMRC wrote a Technical Exchange (TE63) available under FoI which states that due to a technicality, HMRC were unlikely to claim the tax against the scheme.

HMRC planned to litigate 4 test cases as would be proper and normal. However, they never did. Instead, the Government brought in "BN66" in 2008 to apply retrospective legislation.

BN66 to quote it directly, "clarifies" earlier legislation in support of the retrospection. Which means it was not previously clear.

Even during the Parliamentary debating stages, many MP's were concerned over the retrospective element.

Not a single person using this scheme ever hid their financial affairs from HMRC.

The quote you have for the impact on people only relates to a sample of less than 100 out of more that 2500. You should emphasise this point as your commentary suggests that only a handful of people are badly affected by this.

Do not lump these people in the same boat as those who keep their finances secret.

[SantaClaus]

To the BBC


Please ensure you take full account of what you publish. I think fair and unbiased reporting should also take the following into account. Please update your news page to reflect this:

All the taxpayers involved in the scheme declared the grounds for tax relief on every single tax return. Total transparency, not dodging as you put it.

In 2002, HMRC wrote a Technical Exchange (TE63) available under FoI which states that due to a technicality, HMRC were unlikely to claim the tax against the scheme.

HMRC planned to litigate 4 test cases as would be proper and normal. However, they never did. Instead, the Government brought in "BN66" in 2008 to apply retrospective legislation.

BN66 to quote it directly, "clarifies" earlier legislation in support of the retrospection. Which means it was not previously clear.

Even during the Parliamentary debating stages, many MP's were concerned over the retrospective element.

Not a single person using this scheme ever hid their financial affairs from HMRC.

The quote you have for the impact on people only relates to a sample of less than 100 out of more that 2500. You should emphasise this point as your commentary suggests that only a handful of people are badly affected by this.

Do not lump these people in the same boat as those who keep their finances secret.

It's also interesting how the BBC was all for IR35 when it came out. That was until it was found that freelance journalists were caught by it too!

[TheBarCapBoyz]

I dont think the Artic case was new legislation that had been passed by parliament.

I think this more like the IR35 challenge which was new legislation that was also challenged on the basis of human rights.

Does anyone remember what happend after the PCG lost the IR35 case in the high court. Did they appeal or did they give up?

True but it was about whether HMRC could reinterpret existing legislation (in this case the S660 Settlements Legislation), which has some similarities with BN66.

Not least both are "one '6' short of the beast" as TSBT put it in an earlier post.

However the point I was trying to make was that you can lose the early rounds but then still come back to clinch victory in the higher courts.

Just trying to be optmistic as it's all doom and gloom on here today, not surprisingly perhaps.

[TykeMerc]

You're being rather optimistic (incredibly unrealistic too) hoping for the BBC to report fact without some bias and sensationalist headlining.

[sgee]

I think BolshieBastard raises a point that we all dare not voice. This is not a matter independently decided according to the written law. The very fact that we never got a fair test case due to the use of legislation points to this being the case all along. That is why I think it is important that our advisors help us at least plan a way to resolve this with the lowest possible financial impact. At least we see what options are available. For example, this reference to treating retrospective payment enforcement with some discretion.. what are the guidelines in black and white - how do we ensure we receive fair consideration in the matter of discretion?

[javadude]

I'm yet another lurker very appreciative of the comments posted by those who attended the hearing.

I don't agree with the judges comment that we were all warned that the scheme doesn't work by HMRC. The only letter I've had from HMRC on the subject was about a month ago.

I don't have the money to pay HMRC now even if I wanted to so I see no point worrying about it until the game is over. It seems like that is a long way off so I agree with the "Don't panic!" comments for now.

[WhatEver]

To the BBC


Please ensure you take full account of what you publish. I think fair and unbiased reporting should also take the following into account. Please update your news page to reflect this:

All the taxpayers involved in the scheme declared the grounds for tax relief on every single tax return. Total transparency, not dodging as you put it.

In 2002, HMRC wrote a Technical Exchange (TE63) available under FoI which states that due to a technicality, HMRC were unlikely to claim the tax against the scheme.

HMRC planned to litigate 4 test cases as would be proper and normal. However, they never did. Instead, the Government brought in "BN66" in 2008 to apply retrospective legislation.

BN66 to quote it directly, "clarifies" earlier legislation in support of the retrospection. Which means it was not previously clear.

Even during the Parliamentary debating stages, many MP's were concerned over the retrospective element.

Not a single person using this scheme ever hid their financial affairs from HMRC.

The quote you have for the impact on people only relates to a sample of less than 100 out of more that 2500. You should emphasise this point as your commentary suggests that only a handful of people are badly affected by this.

Do not lump these people in the same boat as those who keep their finances secret.

Perfectly put. Does anyone know if there's a BBC link to complain?

[Emigre]

I asked this earlier but did not see any responses. If not in MTM comms next week will raise directly with them.

Also, more articles, FT, press association, all better than BBC . Google and you'll see, various figures used.

Also on text.

If an appeal is not accepted in the UK Courts ie we have exhausted every domestic option available, I believe we can appeal to the European Courts.

Does someone want to knock up a process diagram/decision tree?