BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[silver_lining]

If you think an English judge is going to set a timescale for a response on Parliament, thereby placing on it a 'duty to legislate' unheard of as far as I am aware, you have more faith in the originality and assertiveness of the judiciary than most! It would involve a massive redefinition of the constitution and I cannot see even the boldest Supreme Court judge doing that.

That's not what's is being asked.

Simply put HMRC/HMT already have well defined process to follow to legislate and close done, they do it every year; coupled with how 'unfair' the scheme is.....
Why did they not act swiftly in this case......we now know they thought it worked...

The judges call was simple, is it reasonable and forseeable? he got this wrong

[northernSoul]

" HMRC/HMT already have well defined process to follow to legislate"

HMRC don't legislate, neither does HM Government. Parliament does. It seems to be a recurrent theme of these pages that some people think HMRC is responsible for the passing of s58. Would that it was ! It would make your case a lot simpler.

"Why did they not act swiftly in this case"

This is the point. To say that the law was disproportionate under the ECHR through lapse of time would place a duty on parliament to legislate for all tax loopholes within a period of being notified. Its the effect of the precedential nature of the law.

There is already a duty to legislate on all EU directives within two years - a duty which parliament imposed upon itself. I doubt if parliament would appreciate being told by an unelected judge what its duties should be in this area ! And I strongly doubt that a judge would consider it.

[silver_lining]

"To say that the law was disproportionate under the ECHR through lapse of time would place a duty on parliament to legislate for all tax loopholes within a period of being notified...

There is already a duty to legislate on all EU directives within two years - a duty which parliament imposed upon itself. I doubt if parliament would appreciate being told by an unelected judge what its duties should be in this area ! And I strongly doubt that a judge would consider it.

OK, specifically HMRC don’t draw up the legislation..... please correct me if I am wrong here, but lets cut through the chase [my previous intention ] they are the catalysts in the process and draw attention to the government/ ministers as well as 'influence' parliamentary debate with advice and 'facts' on the respective issue...

No one is saying all tax loopholes should be closed down within a period of being notified...

but when you have, in HMRC's (and JRs view), that this was every 'taxpayers dream'.. I think it’s fair to describe it, from their perspective, as a big problem....

so faced with a big problem.... should they not have acted swiftly?.... and key point, if you are going to consider changing the problematic law backwards, then damn right you have a responsibility to act swiftly as people are planning based on existing law.... and its unfair on them.

The Judge may have refrained from advising them on their duties... but he certainly became a key proponent of Parliamentary policy and avoided his own key responsibility of interpretation of the law.

[OnYourBikeGB]

but when you have, in HMRC's (and JRs view), that this was every 'taxpayers dream'.. I think it’s fair to describe it, from their perspective, as a big problem....

so faced with a big problem.... should they not have acted swiftly?.... and key point, if you are going to consider changing the problematic law backwards, then damn right you have a responsibility to act swiftly as people are planning based on existing law.... and its unfair on them.

100% spot on. Also, do HMRC not owe the taxpayer a duty of care? Why didn't they say they planned on using retrospection right from the start or even that they could?

The truth is, some people will always just argue that we are wrong and we deserve what is coming to us. The problem now is, it may be coming to a lot of them as well. I have seen some debate on other threads on whether or not this judgment affects them, with hopeful get outs like, "I'm not caught, because I was in a loan based scheme and it was legal" etc. Sorry folks, but you're in the trenches as well. Everyone has been put on notice. HMRC can retrospectively charge you if they don't like what you have done (which amounts to not giving them the maximum they could take). They could wait ten years, then make you pay as well as the interest. It doesn't matter one tiny little bit that what you did was legal. They could bankrupt you, and take everything you have saved and worked hard all your life for, and you will never done nothing illegal, ever. Think about it. Is this right? Can this be fair? They knew about this tax planning, it was no secret. In fact, they knew about it before I did. No warnings were issued, no laws changed. They didn't wait just the 7 years since we were came into the frame, they had waited 20 years, since the case itself. And they did NOTHING.

I don't believe that they ever even thought they could use retrospection, right up to BN66. And if they didn't how the hell were we meant to? If they had thought of it, they would have said so, instead of embarrassing themselves by misquoting case law, and in the process making our position more certain. In my book, that makes a nonsense of the judgment. How can they claim that the retrospective nature of Padmore put everyone on notice? They didn't even know themselves.

[SantaClaus]

100% spot on. Also, do HMRC not owe the taxpayer a duty of care? Why didn't they say they planned on using retrospection right from the start or even that they could?

The truth is, some people will always just argue that we are wrong and we deserve what is coming to us. The problem now is, it may be coming to a lot of them as well. I have seen some debate on other threads on whether or not this judgment affects them, with hopeful get outs like, "I'm not caught, because I was in a loan based scheme and it was legal" etc. Sorry folks, but you're in the trenches as well. Everyone has been put on notice. HMRC can retrospectively charge you if they don't like what you have done (which amounts to not giving them the maximum they could take). They could wait ten years, then make you pay as well as the interest. It doesn't matter one tiny little bit that what you did was legal. They could bankrupt you, and take everything you have saved and worked hard all your life for, and you will never done nothing illegal, ever. Think about it. Is this right? Can this be fair? They knew about this tax planning, it was no secret. In fact, they knew about it before I did. No warnings were issued, no laws changed. They didn't wait just the 7 years since we were came into the frame, they had waited 20 years, since the case itself. And they did NOTHING.

I don't believe that they ever even thought they could use retrospection, right up to BN66. And if they didn't how the hell were we meant to? If they had thought of it, they would have said so, instead of embarrassing themselves by misquoting case law, and in the process making our position more certain. In my book, that makes a nonsense of the judgment. How can they claim that the retrospective nature of Padmore put everyone on notice? They didn't even know themselves.

I would go so far as to say that HMRC do not like any arrangements that are not PAYE. Their aim is to get everyone on PAYE where your "fair share" of tax that gets deducted can be controlled by them, not you.

Some people will accuse me of scaremongering, flame away. But I believe if we lose our case, all schemes and methods of payment that are not PAYE will be open to retrospection.

[silver_lining]

.... Sorry folks, but you're in the trenches as well. Everyone has been put on notice. .

Lets me put in easy bite size chucks.

This is the Courts view [so far]:

Forget the law, I don't careless, even if you prove you obided by the law at the time, I am simply not interested in that because Parliament can do what it wants.....

The tax man sent you a letter, the same one, for what seemed like eternity, telling you he did not like it, albeit he was not sure why... therefore this is clear intent to change the law backwards at somepoint in far flung future.....

....

So for all ye, in the queue to stand against the wall of retroexecution ...certainly all ye tax avoiders... or anyone not paying their 'fair share'....

If you get a letter saying I dont like what you are doing, but I am not sure why yet..... and you are 200% sure what you are doing is legal; its curtains..... and start saving......

[smalldog]

I would go so far as to say that HMRC do not like any arrangements that are not PAYE. Their aim is to get everyone on PAYE where your "fair share" of tax that gets deducted can be controlled by them, not you.

Some people will accuse me of scaremongering, flame away. But I believe if we lose our case, all schemes and methods of payment that are not PAYE will be open to retrospection.

I agree, and what Im concerned about are the people who cant see beyond our case and into the future and who arent getting behind our cause. IF they dont join our fight they are taking a massive risk and roll of the dice with their own future....its us today, but who knows who it will be tomorrow...

[TaxDude]

Unfortunately it's not that simple because the rate can change during the year. Also, I believe interest is charged from the date payment on account was due, not the deadline for SA (31st Jan).

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/interest-late.htm

Ok - thanks

[PlaneSailing]

Guess who

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/technology/8500876.stm


The Govenrment just doesn't seem to give a monkeys about
Human Rights at the moment.

Best get onto the Digital Britain Minister. Wonder who that might be....!?

[ToothFairy]

The Letter of The Law

For the above reasons, I do not believe this judgment will stand.

The law is the law.
It does not depend on how many people are involved.
It does not depend on the total amount of tax at stake.
It does not depend on whether people paid 20% tax, 3.5% tax, or 0% tax.

Either it was legal or it wasn't.

I agree 100%.

Many valid points have been made on this channel, and I have read them with intense interest. I applaud all of us for what we are fighting for, and I am very impressed with the competency of many of the postings.

I am not a legal expert, but for me, the bottom line is this: Despite all HMRC's arguments based on "public policy", "fair share of tax", "clarification of S58", "the right to retrospectivity" and the Spirit of the Law ... surely what really matters at the end of the day is the Letter of the Law.

If the Letter of the Law is applied by a higher court, and in doing so this higher court recognises that we were doing nothing illegal, I live in the hope that this higher court would find it immoral to rule against us.

I am in this till the end.