BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[SantaClaus]

What we need is a protest march on Parliament.

Now I have to work out how we can get 2000 contractors to take a day off work

[normalbloke]

Tories and BN66 retrospection

But they didn't enforce the retrospective taxation. The right to close avoidance is not an issue for me. It is the ability to apply tax retrospectively that is. They did not, Labour has. That is the difference and in 1987 they did not do the same thing.

I have a personally signed letter from David Cameron (he's my local MP) saying that his party opposes the retrospective element of BN66. I wrote to him after the initial announcement. He went on to say he would be opposing this at every stage he could.

But I doubt if this will make a jot of difference now.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

BBC headline toned down

We were dodgers. Now we're avoiders.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8484955.stm

[Squicker]

4) Ability of taxpayer to demand a Closure Notice. I didn't get mine until post BN66, but others got theirs earlier, including Huitson I believe. My case was lumped in with theirs by HMRC prior to BN66. Why should I have sought a separate Closure Notice in those circumstances? There is a massive contradiction in the Judge's argument. Because even those who got a CN had their case overriden by BN66. So what would I personally have gained? I would have got no determination in the same way that Huitson didn't. Weak, weak WEAK!
.

What also bothers me about this, additional to the point you mention, is why would a taxpayer demand a CN to force things to a head? Surely this breaks a general law principle which is that the burden of proof is on the accuser? If HMRC felt we were doing something wrong, that's down to them to prove by following the process THEY own.

The fact they sat about ignoring their own process is only going to make people feel the process in fact doesn't apply.

[Squicker]

But they didn't enforce the retrospective taxation. The right to close avoidance is not an issue for me. It is the ability to apply tax retrospectively that is. They did not, Labour has. That is the difference and in 1987 they did not do the same thing.

However, with Labour being the instigators of this legislation, the Tories can take the £100m and blame Labour. They will merely say, "as it's now in the hands of the courts, Parliament doens't feel it appropriate to intervene".

If they ruffle the feathers of 2500 people out of 25000000 voters, so be it.

They have been left a huge problem by Labour and they need every penny to escape from it, because if the Tories don't show progress by the time their five years is up, they may not get re-elected.

Meet the new boss, the same as the old boss.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

My reflections

There is something that really doesn't smell right about the Judge's ruling.

It is so completely at odds with the approach to retrospection set out by Parliament's own human rights committee (point 1.7).

http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/13304.htm#a2

One of the members of this committee is a former High Court judge, and was one of the leading architects of the UK HRA (Google "Lord Lester of Herne Hill").

The Judge talked about not wishing to intervene in policy and social issues but that is exactly what he has done. He has put an interpretation on what satisifies Article 1 Protocol 1 which goes way beyond any previous understandings of proportionality.

Basically, if I read his verdict correctly, he is saying that in the case of tax avoidance, retrospective legislation is acceptable, irrespective of the degree of retrospection or the impact on the individuals affected.

I am starting to wonder if Brillopad was right...

[WhiteCat]

IR35 to blame

Too bl00dy right:

FACT, if they hadnt introduced IR35 99% of wouldnt be here today, FACT, if they had been more resonable in there approach and not applied Interest and fines to the overall cost this would have been more affordable

Having (almost) slept on it - I wish I'd taken more notice of IR35 when it went in as, probably like many here I paid up for the first couple of years because I didn't really understand it, nor did my then accountant. Finding that so many people in exactly the same position as me were outside IR35 made me more receptive to the MTM sales pitch than I would normally have been. Looks now like that may have been the most expensive mistake of my life.

Though I could just about pay up the £200K+ demanded if I sold everything I own (at a loss of course), my family's quality of life would be so altered that I feel I have no option but to carry on fighting.

Glad to hear we're just avoiders now on the BBC. That makes it sound more palatable when people ask . . . .

[GavM]

What we need is a protest march on Parliament.

Now I have to work out how we can get 2000 contractors to take a day off work

Don't forget to bring along the family too, so they can see the people who this really effects

[srhcompcon]

Keeping Faith

Q- People are asking why don't MP give us more information?
A- Because it may end up on public bulletin boards for HMRC to view and be forewarned.

I was hopeful but never expected the JR to be the end of the matter. HMRC were always going to appeal if we won in any case and for a decision so huge to be made by the High Court was unprecidented. If MP had said as much before the court case HMRC would have been rubbing their hands with glee and may have held back other arguements. As it was they have now come up with their best arguments in a lower court and exposed some of their inconsistancies and weak points (in a forn that cannot later be said to have been done by a junior member of staff!).
We have tested the water, prodded and poked and now know how they are arguing their side and will be able to better target and argue/expose those weaknesses in a court better able to make a judgement.

Dont forget winning small battles along the way doesnt win the war.

[StellaFan]