BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[WhatEver]

I've posted a compliant here https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

Response from the BBC, the high quality unbiased news corporation…



Dear Sir,

Thank you for your interest in our article. It was based on reading the 20-page High Court judgement.

In it Mr Justice Parker made it very clear that the Isle of Man tax arrangements had no genuine commercial purpose and were artificial; that the users of the scheme had been warned over several years by HMRC that the scheme might turn out to be illegal; that the users had every opportunity to pay "on account" or put money aside in case the scheme was eventually ruled illegal; and that it was quite proper for the government to outlaw the arrangements with retrospective effect.

It is quite clear that the scheme's users entered into it to dodge the normal levels of UK tax.

What else did they think they were doing? Contributing to the greater good?

Yours sincerely,

Ian Pollock
BBC News website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml

[Squicker]

Response from the BBC, the high quality unbiased news corporation…



Dear Sir,

Thank you for your interest in our article. It was based on reading the 20-page High Court judgement.

In it Mr Justice Parker made it very clear that the Isle of Man tax arrangements had no genuine commercial purpose and were artificial; that the users of the scheme had been warned over several years by HMRC that the scheme might turn out to be illegal; that the users had every opportunity to pay "on account" or put money aside in case the scheme was eventually ruled illegal; and that it was quite proper for the government to outlaw the arrangements with retrospective effect.

It is quite clear that the scheme's users entered into it to dodge the normal levels of UK tax.

What else did they think they were doing? Contributing to the greater good?

Yours sincerely,

Ian Pollock
BBC News website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml

Goodness. I am quite surprised at this, even knowing that the BBC is not a particularly high quality news source, especially the sarcastic response at the end.

Think it's time to start 'dodging' the license fee!

[Toocan]

Well, many of my collegues at work today were gleefully laughing that the loan and EBT schemes (castlemaine etc...) they used for many years have never been challenged and when closed down; were done so without retrospective changes.

I cannot understand why it is 1 rule for some and 1 rule for others. If tax avoidance is now illegal then ALL or NONE of the tax planning schemes should be attacked retrospectivley.

If this judgement is allowed to stand then it will be one rule for all - it would permit ALL schemes to be closed retrospectively. That includes the loan schemes et al. As the judgement is based on public policy, rather than whether the scheme worked before s.58, this is judicial permission to change ANY tax law after the fact. That is because it is accepted as legitimate public policy to tax ones citizens.

The tax planning industry will not sleep easy tonight.

However, there will be an appeal. We should expect that the initial applicaiton to the supreme court will be rejected and the appeal hearing only granted once an oral hearing is heard.

Hold tight everyone, it's not over yet.

[Toocan]

Response from the BBC, the high quality unbiased news corporation…



Dear Sir,

Thank you for your interest in our article. It was based on reading the 20-page High Court judgement.

In it Mr Justice Parker made it very clear that the Isle of Man tax arrangements had no genuine commercial purpose and were artificial; that the users of the scheme had been warned over several years by HMRC that the scheme might turn out to be illegal; that the users had every opportunity to pay "on account" or put money aside in case the scheme was eventually ruled illegal; and that it was quite proper for the government to outlaw the arrangements with retrospective effect.

It is quite clear that the scheme's users entered into it to dodge the normal levels of UK tax.

What else did they think they were doing? Contributing to the greater good?

Yours sincerely,

Ian Pollock
BBC News website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml

I would suggest that many people entered into it to get certainty over their tax affairs. Remember, HMRC refused to give clear assessements over IR35 at the time.

The other problem is that until today the UK was governed by a system of written law. It would appear that law is now based on what should have been, rather than what actually was.

[sgee]

Well, many of my collegues at work today were gleefully laughing that the loan and EBT schemes (castlemaine etc...) they used for many years have never been challenged and when closed down; were done so without retrospective changes.

I cannot understand why it is 1 rule for some and 1 rule for others. If tax avoidance is now illegal then ALL or NONE of the tax planning schemes should be attacked retrospectivley.

Quite! So is there any point at all having a tax advice industry any more? Whatever advice I take can be overridden retrospectively at a whim. What makes our case so different from all others?

[sgee]

Goodness. I am quite surprised at this, even knowing that the BBC is not a particularly high quality news source, especially the sarcastic response at the end.

Think it's time to start 'dodging' the license fee!

Yes - and the point is that unlike anyone else we never got the chance to prove whether the arrangements were legitimate under existing law. So yes, very reasoned response from the BBC.

Taking it back to the masses, surely that means that everyone who uses an ISA is basically not contributing to the common good either. String em up.

[bananarepublic]

Forget what the media says

Frankly I don't give a toss what the media says. The story will be twisted and the important aspect of retrospective legislation being given the green light will be ignored. There is a fundamental point about a citizens right to structure his affairs in accordance with the law at the time that is at stake, so screw the BBC.

[sgee]

thank you - better put than I managed

[ContractIn]

Most supportive yet!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...iggest-threat/

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Is it me?

When you read the judgement there are so many conflicts.

For example:

No more than a cursory glance at UK fiscal legislation is needed to see that residence is the core connecting factor for the imposition of income tax.

Yet the Judge refers many times to the protracted litigation that would have happened.

The JR took a week to go from start to finish. Yet the Judge maintains litigation will be protracted.

Given the scope of a green light on retrospective tax, I think his summary needed a bit more thought.