BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[Rhydd]

Staying calm

Montpelier don't communicate very often, but actually they've done everything that they said they'd do. It certainly sounds as though they put up a good case through Mr Elgin, even though the judge hasn't agreed.

As has been said already, the judge may have given the decision that he did because such an important case is above his pay grade and he wants it settled higher up the tree.

I'm going to wait and see what Montpelier advise.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Well, it's been a day.

I've sat back and collected my thoughts. For me, I think I will hope for the best and plan for the worst and gather together my savings in anticipation of losing them all. I understand this is a long legal process, but MP did not diminish the importance of the JR, quite the opposite. I always knew that it wasn't going to end here, but I'd like to have been ahead.

Personally, I couldn't care less what the media thinks. They will misrepresent to get their sales / hit counts. One thing that this whole process has shown very clearly, is the truth just does not shine through as much as we would like to think. People can think what they want of us, I wonder how many have worked cash in hand, done some 'favours' for mates etc etc. Our own MPs were raking it in, and all they got was a slap on the wrist. Who out of all of this were the only ones telling the complete unadulterated truth? Just us. Not the Government, not the Treasury, not HMRC, not the Press. We can be accused of a few things, but being liars is not one of them. I have many good things to say about the BBC, but I'm disappointed with the sensationalist angle they have taken.

What is worrying is that the Press are a barometer and an influence on public opinion. If we go on to win, there may be a backlash.

Also, anyone who thinks that they are safe because their schemes were closed down with no retrospective 'clarification', are you really safe? Lets be absolutely clear about this, this was not clarification at all. HMRC don't even have to fudge it anymore, they can just change it, and to hell with what anyone thinks about it. This a big big victory for them, and everyone, even the smirking pious should be worried. If you have a little investment in a company that is moving money about to boost its profits entirely legally, prepare to see your money disappear if HMRC turn its eye to their legal practices and bankrupts them. If you left a scheme years ago that's now closed and you think you've got away with it, think again. You could go to bed tonight having led a blemish free life, to find out tomorrow they're coming back to get you and you have been breaking the law for 20 years. You will lose your home, you will lose your savings, you will lose your health, you may even lose your family.

I believe this is still wrong and should be fought by all. It is an incredibly dangerous precedent. Lets not forget what was done to get us to this point, they deceived, they twisted and turned and delayed. And here's the kicker, they didn't have to. They just had to say "you're guilty" and brush us off. This cannot be right. No matter what anyone thinks of our tax planning, this is bigger and much more serious.

Time will tell. I am still in for the long haul, more worried that I was before, more disenchanted than I was before. Prepared for the worst but absolutely certain that this must be seen through, or we really are on the road to tyranny.

[Toocan]

Open and Honest

It's been a big day - compare your day to that of an MP:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8486317.stm

[bananarepublic]

Come on judge - was that the best you could come up with?

I spend all my time developing IT systems and freely admit and I am not learned in the context of law. However, there do seem to be a number of faults with the judgement -

1) Proportionality. They don't send asylum seekers back home because it may be against their human rights. However, the fact that BN66 is grossly disproportionate for some people doesn't count. An example is where someones tax return was not queried until more than 12 months after the 31 Jan deadline AND until BN66 had been enacted. Why should these people have put the money aside? Especially as we now know that in 2002 HMRC issued a technical bulletin saying that the scheme worked. Surely there was also a reasonable expectation here.

2) Padmore. Does Padmore apply or not? Surely if the Judge can't decide then how could a taxpayer? I thought that retrospection could only go back to the original "warning". Was Padmore a warning? If not then how can the retrospection go back to 1987? This is surely a massive breach of protocol (Rees Rules?). Again reasonable expectation.

3) Retrospection. There have been a 1001 tax avoidance schemes in the past 20 years. To my knowledge not a single one has been closed down in a retrospective way like BN66 was, not even the Padmore change in 1987. Why would I set money aside on the off chance a retrospective change would be made?

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!

[ I suspect that no commissioners hearing was ever scheduled is precisely because HMRC knew that retrospection was on its way and they wanted to ensure that everybody was caught. They didn't want people to get the same exemption as Padmore (et al) in 1987 ]

5) Application of Padmore in 1987 was very different to BN66 in 2008. Re 3). Those people lumped in with Padmore by HMRC were exempted from the retrospection because of the case in progress.

6) Suo Motu settlement in 2003. Why isn't this mentioned. Surely this has some impact on the case. If the law "always applied" then why didn't it apply to those settling? How did they get a secret deal? I might want the same deal but was never provided access to it.

7) Oh yes, not forgetting the competition argument.

[smalldog]

welfare state

You know, if I actually thought money I paid back, circa £130k, to the government would actually pay for:

- a new fire engine
- two kidney machines
- two heart transplants
- two new teachers salaries
- two police officers
- even a stretch of four lane M25
- social care in the community
- actually anything to benefit the fabric of society....

I wouldnt mind so much, however I feel, IMHO, its more likely to pay for:

- three families years worth of benefits, who are claiming invalidity and welfare benefit because they are mobidly obesse (yes you hear right, if you are over a certain weight with physical disability purely down to YOUR eating habits you can be classed as an invalid) and cant work cos they are eating themselves to death..turn on the TV, how many FAT programmes have we got...its all very sickening.....where is the incentive to excel??

thats what grates about the welfare voter rigged state...and more now than ever do nuuuu labour need to protect their welfare claiming voters...seems to me we should all go bankrupt and go on the dole, that seems to be what this government want

[Tomred]

Erm! stp panicking again

Hi
Sorry for doing this again I was hoping to be the only person on the site with 1 post, but I've screwed that now.

Not worth listening to, but there you go

I re-iterate, stop trying to be legal beagles.
If I have a water leak I get a plumber.

Watkin, told us all, "the schemes is safe it rocks on"!!.
N.b. His own words to me in his office in London.

Its now time for us all to take a back seat, shut up some of you and await our advisers to lead us to the solution.

If and when we know they have failed, then fine, but for now, stop panicking!!!

Keep the debate but keep it sensible.

Yours, seriously not worth listening too sic!

[smalldog]

I can see why HMRC want the coffers to be added to:

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/budget_ukgs.php

The Government spends more on Welfare (57.7 BILLION quid) than Education or Defence and only Healthcare (probably for those on Welfare) and Pensions come higher.

The one I really like is the "Other Spending". Expand it down and you find 12.8 BILLION quid spent on "Accounting Adjustments". What the Hell are those?

Oh and 27.2 BILLION quid on interest payments.

Makes 100M seem like small change. I think they may need to revise the Welfare figures upwards if this farce gets the "green light".

Makes the Judges comments seem a little shallow when you tot this lot up.

And just to help you sleep tonight, look at the graph at the top "UK Net Public Debt". Can't be precise, but it looks like about 1 TRILLION quid this year going up to about 1.3 TRILLION quid in a couple of years time.

And the Government talk about "fair and proportionate"? Seems to me that they really need 100M extra to support Welfare and fund the National Debt. Thanks Labour, you've done a sterling [sic] job over the last 13 years. The country is going to hell in a handcart and you think retrospection is the way to cover your debts and past failings? No way chief. May 6 - You're out.

I didnt vote for them, and anyone who thought they would do any different than F*** it all up like they did in the 70's was being F****** naive...theyre Labour!!!! supposedly for the working man....hmmmmm more like Welfare man....

just watching question time and apparently the government spent £90m on the equalities commission, nice to know where our cash is going...

[StellaFan]

There's a long way to go but why does it feel like it's all over!

[SantaClaus]

Looks like our wonderful tax system just lost another source of revenue thanks to their clear and precise legislation...

http://blogs.news.sky.com/kleinman/P...f-7a4ed5002ce9

Brewing Boss Launches Tax Attack

The head of SAB Miller, the FTSE 100 brewing giant, has told me that Britain's uncertain tax environment has driven him to locate a key division of the company in Switzerland rather than the UK.

In a series of outspoken comments to me at the World Economic Forum, Graham Mackay, SAB's chief executive, said that Britain had become an illiberal and unpredictable place to do business. And he said that that had been a primary factor in the brewer's decision to situate its global procurement function in the Swiss canton of Zug rather than in the UK.

"One of the things that attracted SAB Miller to move its HQ to London and to list on the LSE in 1999 was the liberal and predictable tax regime.......

Submitted to Sky:

A landmark Judicial Review in the High Court (Huitson vs HMRC) paved the way for retrospective taxation today.

Now, individuals and businesses no longer have any certainty in their tax affairs, because the govt can change tax laws and backdate the effect on a whim. So who still wants to do business here? No wonder they are flocking to Geneva.

The government are so desperate to pay any way they can for their quantative easing program and massive public sector expenditure, they dont seem to bothered about bleeding the taxpayer and businesses dry in order to do this.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Has anyone heard of a case Willoughby brought up around 1987? I have canvassed the opinions of some of my people who are now on various other "loan" schemes and one of their parent companies sent out an email update today basically stating "do not worry, the resuly of Huitson v HMRC has no impact on our system" In their opinion, the MP scheme never worked and this was based on a case brought up in 1987...Willoughby?????

Perhaps they mistook this for Padmore and indeed it may well be corporate waffle to reassure their current client base.

Personally, I'm thinking getting out of all this DTA / Loans etc and doing the extreme of limited company but taking it all as salary and taking the full tax hit on the lot...this really appears to be the only safe way not to get attacked in the future.

This was mentioned in the written judgement and refers to the claim against section 788(3) of ICTA 1988 in relation to Padmore by the Claimant.

After or should I say "during" Padmore, FA1987 (2) included this subsection (62):

By section 62(2), subject to an exclusion for decided or pending litigation, the relevant amendment

"shall be deemed always to have been made."

Which infers that this is excluded for decided or pending litigation.

Or to put it simply, the change in law after Padmore raises a question over what or who a Partner is and yet notwithstanding is excluded subject to decided or pending litigation.