BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[Squicker]

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.

...

I think northernsoul is probably a little too coherent to be Jones. I say it's an HMRC typing monkey sent to rattle resolve...

[smalldog]

northern soul

As the HMRC branch we are dealing with is in the North its a bit of a coincidence their user name has Northern in the title... :-)

As everyone feared the fact this retrospection has been allowed to stand does appear to be the thin end of the wedge as even parliament feared. In the parliamentary debate this was supposed to be a one off, MP's even feared HMRC would use it without suitable justification if this legislation was passed and guess what!..It was supposedly only to be used in extreme and rare cases, cant imagine ten days after the judgement they have managed to find such an animal... Just look at the retrospective nature of the FT link. Its open season everyone, here we go with rewriting all past legislation to pay for the quantitive easing....This country is falling apart....such a shame. not sure I want to live in this environment anymore

I read an interesting article around the 50% tax rate and saw the tax now being applied to pension contributions! maybe we will be taxed for taking a SH*T soon

[lucozade]

Can the Administrator check IP addresses of NorthernSoul and Mr "A" and indeed confirmed if they are coming from the same source.

Problem solved

[bananarepublic]

Not sure the retrospection mentioned in the FT is completely analogous to our situation. I doubt whether HMRC ever issued a tax bulletin arguing that the exemption claimed could not be challenged. Also if HMRC had acted so quickly in our case it is doubtful so many of us would be in the mess we are in now. However, BN66 has obviously set a precedent.

On a different subject I can't see why we should be against people posting contrarian opinions to our own - as long as they do not gloat or goad. Obviously there have been some extreme cases but some recent posts have seemed pretty well argued. The bottom line is that nobody knows what the outcome will be. We are definitely on the back foot but whatever the final judgement I expect surprises on the way.

Finally, and this is something that has been bothering me. Did the wrong case go to the JR? Wouldn't it have been better to have picked one of those individuals not under investigation prior to BN66 where multiple returns had been implicitely accepted by HMRC? Surely under the provisions s.58 HMRC had justification to issue CN's. Wouldn't choosing one of these people have neutralised a lot of the judgement?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Contrarian opinions

On a different subject I can't see why we should be against people posting contrarian opinions to our own - as long as they do not gloat or goad. Obviously there have been some extreme cases but some recent posts have seemed pretty well argued.

I have no problem at all with this, which is why I welcomed malvolio back. Whilst he and I have had our differences in the past, at least I know where he's coming from. Likewise, ASB has injected a few welcome reality checks along the way.

We just need to remember:

1. There are people out there, with their own agenda, who want us to believe that the case is hopeless.
2. There are also people it would suit if we turned on the scheme promoters.

Dissenting voices suddenly appearing out of nowhere are not necessarily friends of ours.

What do we know about northernSoul? He/she says they are an "IT bod" with a law degree, who came on this forum to help a chum out who used the scheme. Might be plausible but it could equally just be a ruse to spread FUD.

[RockTheBoat]

Dissenting voices suddenly appearing out of nowhere are not necessarily friends of ours.

agreed

as they say.. "the friend of my enemy is not my friend".

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Finally, and this is something that has been bothering me. Did the wrong case go to the JR? Wouldn't it have been better to have picked one of those individuals not under investigation prior to BN66 where multiple returns had been implicitely accepted by HMRC? Surely under the provisions s.58 HMRC had justification to issue CN's. Wouldn't choosing one of these people have neutralised a lot of the judgement?

As I understood it, Montpelier had to apply for the JR within 3 months after s.58 received royal assent hence the reason Huitson, who was one of the first to receive CNs, was selected.

I wonder if more could have been made of the 4 test cases who received CNs in March 2006?

[bananarepublic]

As I understood it, Montpelier had to apply for the JR within 3 months after s.58 received royal assent hence the reason Huitson, who was one of the first to receive CNs, was selected.

I wonder if more could have been made of the 4 test cases who received CNs in March 2006?

Perhaps this all feeds into the lack of an impact assessment. The Judge made a big deal of the following
1) Taxpayers under investigation could have requested CN's at any point
2) Taxpayers under investigation should have set funds aside in case of retrospection.
3) Some ECHR case where some Italian chap had been taxed retrospectively even when his actions had been approved of previously but didn't apply to us because HMRC had not acted in this way.

However, how could these points apply to someone who had not been under investigation prior to s. 58 and who had multiple tax returns accepted by HMRC (doesn't apply to me BTW). Surely in these cases the Judgement breaks down.

"Obviously" HMRC were right to reopen these tax returns because s.58 was retrospective but there is precedent to say s.58 was in breach of human rights (the Italian case).

Also was it not the CN's that triggered the requirement for a JR not the passing of s.58 as part of the Finance Act?

[Squicker]

Finally, and this is something that has been bothering me. Did the wrong case go to the JR? Wouldn't it have been better to have picked one of those individuals not under investigation prior to BN66 where multiple returns had been implicitely accepted by HMRC? Surely under the provisions s.58 HMRC had justification to issue CN's. Wouldn't choosing one of these people have neutralised a lot of the judgement?

It certainly seems that way, with hindsight doesn't it? But MP didn't have the view at that point, that they have now.

Assumption is this sort of thing can be raised in the appeal, and indeed in the written request to appeal.

[bananarepublic]

Also was it not the CN's that triggered the requirement for a JR not the passing of s.58 as part of the Finance Act?

If I am wrong on this one then surely the cases I have mentioned where returns were reopened should be admissable as evidence. HMRC didn't exactly work at top speed reopening investigations/issuing CN's post BN66. Some may have become apparent post the application for the JR and indeed some may still arise.