BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[johnnyguitar]

here's a question

if I haven't submitted a tax return for a year where I might have been using a tax-planning scheme.
Can I change my return before submitting it now ? i.e. change the structure I was using?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Just wondering, why do we think HMRC are only targeting people going back to 2001? If they claim they are clarifying 1987 legistlation, why not got back to then?

My theory is that they are targeting IT contractors as 2001 was post-IR35

They really don't like us....

There is also the small matter of the 7-year rule.

Anyone who used the scheme prior to 2001, and slipped under the radar, probably couldn't be caught by s58.

[northernSoul]

I disagree with your 2nd statement. Parker bought the "benefits to society" argument because he did not have the power to decide whether retrospection should be allowed. It was an easy way out for him to send this to a higher court. We also know that he worked on several HMRC cases and so his opinion was inherently biased.

How can you be so sure the same thing will happen at the Supreme Court or the ECHR? There will be 3 judges at the Supreme Court.

Your final comment regarding the ECHR is vague and without substance. Lets have some facts to back up your argument!

You can read any basic legal textbook about the difference between purposive/teleological interpretation, roman law and English (common) law. The ECHR is basically a roman law document (as it's European - the main system on the continent is not our legal system but the roman one). It therefore uses teleological interpretion.

The approach used in English courts is basically non-purposive (close to 'letter of the law'), with the notable exception of laws connect to foreign treaties - namely the EU Treaty and and ECHR. In those cases the standard is to adopt the teleological method of interpretation and go beyond the letter of the law.

Judge Parker never had the power to decide if or not 'retrospection should be allowed' as nobodyhas that power. Not even the European Court of Human Rights. All that a court in the UK can do is make a declaration of incompatibility of the ECHR, a result which is not binding on the government or parliament to do anything.

The judge also never referred the matter to a higher court, he found against the claimant. It is now up to the claimant to obtain permission to carry on to the Appeal Court.

[northernSoul]

Just wondering, why do we think HMRC are only targeting people going back to 2001? If they claim they are clarifying 1987 legistlation, why not got back to then?

My theory is that they are targeting IT contractors as 2001 was post-IR35

They really don't like us....

Limitation Acts
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatut..._19800058_en_1

[Alba]

I am considering adding a Poll to this thread. I want to keep it very simple so it can't be misinterpretted/misconstrued.

What do people think?

Yes I will have to sell my house, as I don't see the banks allowing me to re-mortgage to pay off an HMRC bill.

Savings now gone, as due to the economic climate, for the last 1.1/2 years I have only had on average a two day working week, but obviously the bills are still the same.

[BolshieBastard]

Inst this northern soul just a troll or that piece of excrement who helped hmrc at the hearing posting under another name?

Dont feed the trolls!

[johnnyguitar]

re-mortgaging

Yes I will have to sell my house, as I don't see the banks allowing me to re-mortgage to pay off an HMRC bill.

Savings now gone, as due to the economic climate, for the last 1.1/2 years I have only had on average a two day working week, but obviously the bills are still the same.

do you need to give a reason for re-mortgaging ? you could say you wanted to release some equity in the house for going on a round-the-world trip. I don't think the banks care too much - they will assess your credit exposure and they always have the option to call it in and reclaim the house if you default - so that comes down to your mortgage-to-value percentage.

I spoke to my bank about using the 'reserve' account on my existing offset mortgage - this runs at the current 1.09 rate and you dont even need to have a repayment mechanism in place for it - although they recommend you meet at least the interest payments. I reckon I can do better than 1.09 so I'm taking out the full load and re-investing it in cash ISAs, savings accounts etc
They certainly werent fussed what the money was for.

[northernSoul]

And isnt this why we have a judicial system, to defend citizens against an overmighty state.

Not in England and Wales and never has been : hence the term "Her Majesty's Courts". The Courts have never had the power to intervene in the primamry legislation of parliament and still don't. Since 1999 they have had the power to find law "incompatible" with the ECHR, but such a finding has no binding effect on the government.

So when you are next reflecting on what a great, noble and time-honoured country you are living in, with its quirky unwritten constitution, remember that the building blocks of the legal system is still a largely medieval shambling mess.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Question for northernSoul

Let me turn all of this on its head.

Suppose this judgment were allowed to stand ie. any appeals failed to achieve a declaration of incompatibility.

Where would this leave the UK Tax system?

HMRC have already stated that they intend to target other arrangements retrospectively. If fact, wouldn't there be an onus on them to do so from the point of view of consistency, otherwise s58 would be seen to be wholly arbitrary?

[northernSoul]

Let me turn all of this on its head.

Suppose this judgment were allowed to stand ie. any appeals failed to achieve a declaration of incompatibility.

Where would this leave the UK Tax system?

HMRC have already stated that they intend to target other arrangements retrospectively. If fact, wouldn't there be an onus on them to do so from the point of view of consistency, otherwise s58 would be seen to be wholly arbitrary?

The simple answer is, as long as parliament backs it, it will be ok. HMRC can introduce and pass no laws by itself. A basic but important point ! HMRC is only as legally important as you or me (well.. bit of a simplification..) but if either you, me or HMRC get parliament to pass a bill, we are bordering on the indefeasible.

..well, as long the law doesn't violate the EU treaty that is - which has nothing to do with the ECHR.