BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[DonkeyRhubarb]

FAO: Europa

http://forums.contractoruk.com/1069487-post903.html

Apologies for appearing suspicious but we've had a few trolls in recent months.

If you are a genuine scheme user either:
a) send a message to the Administrator and request permission to send private messages, then PM me
OR
b) email me at [email protected]

Thanks
DR

[silver_lining]

..a note to Fletch..

I don’t believe that anyone fighting S.58 cares for individuals that continue to try and gnaw away at our founded optimism as it only serves to underscore our support for each other, while completely alienating themselves. I say this confident that no one affected by S.58 is naïve enough not to realise we have a difficult long road ahead and hence will plan for all eventualities….. which extends to storage of vintage champagne

I think it’s fair to say we have faith and respect in our representation and remain confident that truth and justice will eventually prevail.

Someone raised the question of whether MPs pursuit of justice is self serving? Maybe…..

In my opinion I have no concerns with MPs priorities as long as they don’t use peoples suffering and hardship to serve their own purposes. Others, on the other hand, who were once proponents of the scheme have demonstrated their support for HMRC in front of a live audience. The fact is many families will be destroyed as a result of this legislation and those supporting HMRC in the interests of their own personal financial difficulty are endorsing and perpetuating that suffering. In my moral code book, that is the lowest of the low.

As everyone knows, we have always had a lot of interest in the forum, good and bad, I believe some individuals are engaging in the debate not with the intention of having a balanced discussion, but rather consciously engaging in the ‘for and against’ debate for their own information gathering purposes, as such would reiterate and strongly discourage getting drawn in to the point of divulging any key information.

It’s a long road ahead and to those who compromised their morals for thirty pieces of silver, beware and brace, as there are some surprises in store beyond your tiny minds….

To Judas & Co Ltd, it is sometimes useful to sit, think and let those negative emotions subside.... reign in that desperation and fear as they too mock the meat they feed on………..

[Tuntun]

Well they're not wasting any time. I have no idea if this is linked in any way but this is really sticks in my throat....

From the FT.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/529854b4-1...44feab49a.html

Treasury blocks £1bn tax loophole

By Vanessa Houlder

Published: February 9 2010 22:34 | Last updated: February 9 2010 22:34

A corporate tax loophole that threatened to drain the exchequer of £1bn a year was blocked on Tuesday by the Treasury in legislation that will be backdated to October 2007.

The move is a response to a threat by banks and other companies to exploit an apparent defect in legislation introduced in 2007 concerning “repo” transactions – agreements to sell and repurchase securities that amount to a form of short-term borrowing.

The retrospective nature of the move was greeted with concern by advisers, who have opposed the increasing willingness of the government to backdate changes.

Dominic Stuttaford of Norton Rose, the law firm, said: “It is another example of HMRC [Revenue & Customs] passing legislation with retrospective effect to correct gaps in the old legislation.”

The move seemed “odd” to lawyers who believed that people ought to be taxed on the basis of what the law says, rather than what the Revenue thought it ought to say. But such moves served as warnings to those who tried to exploit loopholes, Mr Stuttaford added.

Bill Dodwell of Deloitte said the amendment was intrinsically sensible and unlikely to disrupt the market but should not have been retrospective.

“The rule of law surely means we should have the law for a particular period. It is not easy to understand why they thought it right to backdate it,” he said.

Tuesday’s legislation was triggered by a bid to exploit the loophole mounted by a single company which, if successful, could have sparked multiple similar moves. The cost to the exchequer of claims dating back to 2007 could have been as much as £1bn. A similar sum was expected to be lost every year if the law had remained unchanged.

[northernSoul]

Oh dear "Mr A" - wasn't the drunken rant enough?

I can 'say' anything I like - it doesn't make it enforceable.

And while ,shall we call them supremacists, can claim the absolute sovereignty of Parliament they forgot what has all gone on. If the UK government did nothing in the face of a declaration of incompatibility (as a certain A.Brannigan suggested they might) then it would be much easier to get Europe involved. Parliament HAS to do what Europe says – unless and until the UK decides to leave the EU. Is that going to happen? I doubt it. So the ECHR will be respected.

I think we know who's behind the drunken ranting. The EU and ECHR are independent treaties. Parliament does have to do what the ECJ (chief court of the EU Treaty) says, but not the ECtHr. But here - don't take my word for it - read a legal textbook revison guide. It sounds like you could do with it. You can also note for yourself what the effects of incompatibility are.


http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/978019...mmary_ch04.pdf

"You appear to have came on here to stir up strife. Let's tackle some of your other suggestions:

Q: Can one sue ones scheme provider?
A: No, not if the scheme were to fail on s.58.

Q: Will s.58 be allowed to stand?
A: Unlikely - see my earlier messages.

Q: Is it all over if s.58 is allowed to stand?
A: No.

Q: Could one have a claim against a scheme provider if it was found that the scheme works?
A: If they told you to settle, Yes."


Well, thanks judge ! It looks pretty straightforward when you put it like that !

It's funny how 'stirring' and 'strife' are used as words to describe me when what is meant is 'somebody who is not living in the clouds of self delusion that envelops certain users this forum'. I used the forum as part of efforts to help a chum. What I was surprised to learn is that an entire fantasy world of a non-existent legal system has been constructed by some of its users. A legal system where executive bodies make law, where judges legislate and a mythical she-God of justice will eventually give deliverance, no matter what.

Its alas a world into which truth and common sense are not just unwelcome but positively villified. A forum that seems largely (and sadly) for fantasy, not practical advice. Well, as my chum has now decided on his course of action I have no further interest in this forum. I wish you all the best of luck nonetheless - and keep your chins up, the courts always surprise...

[Alan Jones]

Northern Soul

I am flattered to being linked with so much tax knowledge but i have to admit NS is not me.
I don't think i have ever mentioned (seriously) suing anyone because - quite frankly - no one will receive a dime. Companies that are sued can "cease trading" before the stamp dries on the summons. As for suing certain individuals - i guess they have no money . Probably beneficiaries of a faraway trust that does.

[Alan Jones]

Snow/cold spell on the way

Damn , drat that jones has been at it again. In cahoots with HMRC - my drive has 3 foot of snow, yet my civil service next door neighbour is sunbathing on his lawn.

[portseven]

Well they're not wasting any time. I have no idea if this is linked in any way but this is really sticks in my throat....

From the FT.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/529854b4-1...44feab49a.html

I agree, they certainally are not wasting any time. You would have thought they could not do anything until our case is fully close and a proper precedent has been set? Hopefully this will serve to gather a bigger army in our fight against retrospection.

[SantaClaus]

blah blah blah...

Its alas a world into which truth and common sense are not just unwelcome but positively villified. A forum that seems largely (and sadly) for fantasy, not practical advice. Well, as my chum has now decided on his course of action I have no further interest in this forum. I wish you all the best of luck nonetheless - and keep your chins up, the courts always surprise...

NorthernSoul, its very easy to become an "armchair lawyer" and make statements to back up your ideas whilst avoiding replying to questions you dont like.

You didnt answer the following point that I made earlier:

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.

Yep, but parliament was misled. Stephen Timms lied that it was a "clarification" to get the bill passed.

He deceived parliament and the Queen.

[Rhydd]

More retrospective legislation

I'm not sure whether this has already been reported on this thread, nor whether the BN66 High Court judgement gave the government confidence to introduce more retrospective tax legislation.

(Note that the FT is a paid site, but I was able to read the item once, and also read the link to " the increasing willingness of the government to backdate changes" on my first visit to these pages. I could not return to them as the site requested payment on subsequent visits).

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/529854b4-1...=88&SID=google

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Thank you

I have tried to contact everyone personally but not sure if I had current email addresses etc. Please accept apologies if I overlooked anyone.

My wife and I were both lost for words by your kindness.

All I can say is a huge thank you!