BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[SLB]

If it's over 2 weeks since you wrote to your MP and you still haven't had a reply, you may want to send this to help ram the message home.

http://wimg.co.uk/ozF.doc

Thanks!
DR

Thanks DR - follow up letter posted to Ed Davey MP (Lib Dem) today. Not yet had a response to my original letter though - perhaps a personal visit to one of his surgeries is in order!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Letters

For the next couple of weeks, I will list the various letter templates in my signature below.

[fatbot]

Same reply letter just received from Gregory Barker MP (Cons)

Have now sent second letter...

[loftedtag]

Letter to MP

Original and follow-up sent to Dominic Raab M.P. (Esher & Walton)

M

I have also sent a letter to Dominic Raab about 3 weeks ago, not received a reply yet. The previous incumbent Ian Taylor replied in 2 weeks when I first wrote to my MP about this. Maybe Mr Raab is inundated!

Also sent email copy of letter to Treasury marked for George Osbourne's attention. I am getting ready to send letter no2, but hopefully they will see the light and undue S58.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

A bit of healthy pessimism

Some people have expressed pessimism to me about whether the Government will actually do anything, and I can understand this. I too am pessimistic. No-one wants to get their hopes up only to have them dashed.

However, even if the Government don't act on this occasion, there are still positives to be drawn from this exercise.

1. Keeping the issue alive

Every time we write, it reminds them we haven't gone away, and that we can't afford to go away.

2. Getting them to say where they stand

So far, not a single MP has received a written reply from a Minister (like we used to get from Kennedy and Timms). This doesn't suprise me. However, they won't be able to remain silent forever, and eventually they will have to come out and say where they stand on s.58. It would be extremely bizarre if they supported it now, when they voiced so much opposition at the time, and both Tories and Libdems unanimously voted against it.

3. Moving a step closer

Contrary to what they say, I don't believe that the main obstacle to repeal is the state of the public finances. They know that repealing it will have a negligible effect going forward. In any case, there is nothing to stop HMRC pursuing us on the basis of the law as it was prior to 2008.

No, the main obstacle is public opinion. They won't want to be seen as going soft on "tax avoiders" whilst bringing in swingeing cuts to public services.

If we were to get a positive result in the Court of Appeal in November, then this would give them an ideal opportunity to act without attracting adverse publicity. By writing now we are sowing the seeds for this.

[Slobbo]

If bn66 was removed in the emergency budget what is the situation then?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If bn66 was removed in the emergency budget what is the situation then?

Although we call it BN66, the measure actually contained 2 provisions:

(1) the retrospective component (s.58 paras 4 & 5)
(2) a prospective element which plugged the loophole going forward

Of course, they would only repeal (1), and the effect of this would be to return the law prior to March 2008 to what it was before BN66.

HMRC would then be perfectly within their rights to take us to the tax courts on the basis of the previous law.

This is how it has to be, and should be. We cannot and should not expect any more than this.

This would give us back the justice we should have been entitled to at the time.

[Slobbo]

Ok so this is the bit that confuses me. The retrospective element is because they believe the 87 legislation always applied. If they took it to the tax courts would it not be arguing the same point of law. If the tax courts agreed with the revenue would we not be in the same situation? Facing years of back taxes?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Ok so this is the bit that confuses me. The retrospective element is because they believe the 87 legislation always applied. If they took it to the tax courts would it not be arguing the same point of law. If the tax courts agreed with the revenue would we not be in the same situation? Facing years of back taxes?

Do you think they really believe that? If the legal advice they received had proffered this opinion, do you think they would have gone down the retro path?

Remember, this didn't even occur to them until Autumn 2007. Prior to that, for several years, all they had put forward was Archer Shee etc. There was never any mention of 1987 or Padmore.

If the BN66-retro was repealed, I doubt very much they would take us to court on the basis of 1987-Padmore.

Personally, I would be more than happy to take my chances with the law as it was, and I know all the promoters feel the same way.

[Slobbo]

Thanks DR. Just wondered. I am a fish out of water when it comes to this stuff. Lets face it the law, the interpretation of it and the processes around enforcement are not exactly straight forward. This whole situation was bought about through interpretation or mis-interpretation of the rules.