BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Do the numbers

Let's suppose you currently owe £100k + £50k interest, and you have the money to pay.

You could settle now, and that would be the end of it.

OR

You could take out a CTD for £100k, thereby ensuring no further interest.

Take the £50k and stick it in a high interest account. Let's say you could average 4% net over the next 5 years.

After 5 years, you've got just over £60k.

That's £10k you wouldn't have had if you'd settled.

[Emigre]

Cast your minds back a few weeks to a time before the JR. We didn't know which way the case would go, we felt we had a reasonable case.

That case has now been presented and judgement handed down. We have lost the day but we have not lost the week, the month or the year. The Press love the sensational headline of "tax avoiders this or that" but have little regard for the underlying impact of the judgement.

The serious press will catch on soon, will do the proper research, and will realise that this case is not about Mr Huitson, not about 2500 IT contractors, and not about palm trees on a sunny island in the Irish Sea (I know but the Daily Mail managed it!). This case is about whether its ok for the UK Govt to develop and apply taxes retrospectively.

Nothing has changed from that period before we went to Court, both sides had already stated they would appeal if they lost, and that is where we are now.

The real issue lies around public and social policy. If the Supreme Court finds in favour of HMRC then the UK can kiss goodbye to the prospects of any inward investment, all the budget projections will be missed by a massive margin since the annual growth projections will be woefully overstated (they probably already are anyway). UK plc will be a pile of tulip and sterling will get flushed away even further than now.

The cost of that is massive compared to the tiny amounts that any Govt could hope to raise though any number of retrospective attacks. This country is crying out for investment. There are no funds available here so they need to come from abroad but no one in their right mind would invest here with the prospect of having the grounds on which they invested changed by a cornered, deceitful and greedy Government.

I still believe in the judicial process and when put into proper context the wider public interest is best served by outlawing retrospection once and for all.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

A rallying call

My Barrister mate just phoned me. He's been looking over the judgement and had the following observation:

The judge may have done us a favour. It's no longer about 2500 embattled people, it's about the whole tax planning industry, the way tax legislation is drafted and enforced. He compared our situation to the Battle of Waterloo. We've been keeping a regimented square before yesterday. Now when it appeared we were outnumbered and outgunned the Prussian army comes into sight. Or as he put it, the entire tax planning system. So hold your nerve.

Even Wellington lost the first engagements.

His view is that we're no longer 2500 people, but a whole army with many more stakeholders than on Wednesday. It's just a question of whether they want to join forces or not.

He noted that the Judge played both sides of the coin when considering the legality of the scheme and Padmore. The judgement opens the door to a bigger challenge than just ours.

And I liked this:

"I didn't want you to go on holiday thinking there's just you and 2499 others facing the State. I think your ranks have just swollen out of all 'proportion'. It's just a question of getting the momentum going. Even marshalling troops to invade Iraq took more than 24hrs. Your fight has just spilled onto the streets."

So let's see who wants to join the fight.

[srhcompcon]

My Barrister mate just phoned me. He's been looking over the judgement and had the following observation:

The judge may have done us a favour. It's no longer about 2500 embattled people, it's about the whole tax planning industry, the way tax legislation is drafted and enforced. He compared our situation to the Battle of Waterloo. We've been keeping a regimented square before yesterday. Now when it appeared we were outnumbered and outgunned the Prussian army comes into sight. Or as he put it, the entire tax planning system. So hold your nerve.

Even Wellington lost the first engagements.

His view is that we're no longer 2500 people, but a whole army with many more stakeholders than on Wednesday. It's just a question of whether they want to join forces or not.

He noted that the Judge played both sides of the coin when considering the legality of the scheme and Padmore. The judgement opens the door to a bigger challenge than just ours.

And I liked this:

"I didn't want you to go on holiday thinking there's just you and 2499 others facing the State. I think your ranks have just swollen out of all 'proportion'. It's just a question of getting the momentum going. Even marshalling troops to invade Iraq took more than 24hrs. Your fight has just spilled onto the streets."

So let's see who wants to join the fight.

Hear Hear

[KiwiGuy]

My Barrister mate just phoned me. He's been looking over the judgement and had the following observation:

The judge may have done us a favour. It's no longer about 2500 embattled people, it's about the whole tax planning industry, the way tax legislation is drafted and enforced. He compared our situation to the Battle of Waterloo. We've been keeping a regimented square before yesterday. Now when it appeared we were outnumbered and outgunned the Prussian army comes into sight. Or as he put it, the entire tax planning system. So hold your nerve.

Even Wellington lost the first engagements.

His view is that we're no longer 2500 people, but a whole army with many more stakeholders than on Wednesday. It's just a question of whether they want to join forces or not.

He noted that the Judge played both sides of the coin when considering the legality of the scheme and Padmore. The judgement opens the door to a bigger challenge than just ours.

And I liked this:

"I didn't want you to go on holiday thinking there's just you and 2499 others facing the State. I think your ranks have just swollen out of all 'proportion'. It's just a question of getting the momentum going. Even marshalling troops to invade Iraq took more than 24hrs. Your fight has just spilled onto the streets."

So let's see who wants to join the fight.

yes i agree, the next couple of cases brings a whole lot of power with it and the High court case wont be about little ol us, it will be about the fact its acceptable for govt to apply retrospective tax to anyone...

[moira under the stairs]

My Barrister mate just phoned me. He's been looking over the judgement and had the following observation:

The judge may have done us a favour. It's no longer about 2500 embattled people, it's about the whole tax planning industry, the way tax legislation is drafted and enforced. He compared our situation to the Battle of Waterloo. We've been keeping a regimented square before yesterday. Now when it appeared we were outnumbered and outgunned the Prussian army comes into sight. Or as he put it, the entire tax planning system. So hold your nerve.

Even Wellington lost the first engagements.

His view is that we're no longer 2500 people, but a whole army with many more stakeholders than on Wednesday. It's just a question of whether they want to join forces or not.

He noted that the Judge played both sides of the coin when considering the legality of the scheme and Padmore. The judgement opens the door to a bigger challenge than just ours.

And I liked this:

"I didn't want you to go on holiday thinking there's just you and 2499 others facing the State. I think your ranks have just swollen out of all 'proportion'. It's just a question of getting the momentum going. Even marshalling troops to invade Iraq took more than 24hrs. Your fight has just spilled onto the streets."

So let's see who wants to join the fight.

I'd like too buy your Barrister M8 a bottle of the finest wine ....

[johnnyguitar]

Let's suppose you currently owe £100k + £50k interest, and you have the money to pay.

You could settle now, and that would be the end of it.

OR

You could take out a CTD for £100k, thereby ensuring no further interest.

Take the £50k and stick it in a high interest account. Let's say you could average 4% net over the next 5 years.

After 5 years, you've got just over £60k.

That's £10k you wouldn't have had if you'd settled.

OK, so my maths is rubbish (hey - I work in IT!!) and I need someone's help here but,
would it be better to put the whole 150k into investments, thereby letting the interest accrue at the revenue. Could you outstrip their interest ? and possibly have an even bigger sum if we win ?

[nuffsaid]

but self employed poepl only pay a stamnp dont they .. so negliible NI

I thought we're still liable for Class 4, current 8%?

[KiwiGuy]

OK, so my maths is rubbish (hey - I work in IT!!) and I need someone's help here but,
would it be better to put the whole 150k into investments, thereby letting the interest accrue at the revenue. Could you outstrip their interest ? and possibly have an even bigger sum if we win ?

yeah that was my thought as well and i would have the pleasure of saying to the HMRC, "Well i was thinking about investing in a CTD, but by the look of the countrys accounts im better at looking after money than you are "

[RingStinger]

FAVOUR PLEASE: Could some-one with an inside link to MontP confirm that the CN's include NI - I know my email would be ignored for several months (along with my other emails).
I'm about to get a a CTD (probably) and want to make sure I cover the right amount.

My CN's definately contain NI, although its possible all don't!

My CN's were 7 pages of totally confusing debits and credits, then to make matters worse, had various amounts handwritten in pen. There was a covering letter from my local compliance office saying that the handwritten amendments were for NI. So maybe my local office were being efficient.

PS. This response may be late as my posts take hours to appear