BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[TAF4]

Hector - hang your head in shame.

Unfortunately there are obstacles
<Big snip>
If the courts rule in our favour then the judiciary will take the flak.

But so will Hector - big style.

HMRC are guilty of exploiting their enormous authority in ways that would normally be considered illegal. Ultimately it will be proven that the avoidance scheme that we adopted was legal and fully transparent. It was technically understood by Hector and accepted as a legal tax planning (avoidance) measure for almost 7 years. Backdating the change in the law was only achieved by misleading Parliament. Someone should be locked in the Tower for that!!


The ramifications of this case in the Supreme Court, whichever way it goes, could lead to some major changes within HMRC to make them more transparent and accountable to Society and the Executive they 'serve'.

My guess is that neither HMRC, this Government or Nieu Leibor will want Brussels to scrutinise too closely what they have been doing.

[johnnyguitar]

Unfortunately there are obstacles

1) He's in coalition with Liberals who are hot on tax avoidance

2) Doing anything in the current climate of austerity which could be seen to be soft on tax avoidance would be political dynamite in the hands of the opposition

3) He's got HMRC breathing down his neck to leave this well alone

There's nothing in it for the Government to do anything, so it's far easier for them to cop out and leave it to the courts to resolve. If the courts rule in our favour then the judiciary will take the flak.

but equally, it wouldn't look too good for them if the press picked up on the fact that views and intentions publically declared before the election then get an abrubt u-turn. It would be damaging to this government to be seen to be u-turning.
After all, we voted them in on their policies and standpoints, it's just not acceptable that they change so drastically.
I'm more than happy to write directly to David Gauke on this issue alone, to ask him to explain such a drastic about-turn.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Musings

My guess is if Gauke was put on the spot, he might argue that this is too important an issue to be decided politically. You might view this as a "cop out" but he would have a point.

If the new Government were to reverse the legislation, then it could trivialise the matter by making it just look like a difference of opinion/policy between them and Labour.

Also, suppose the coalition collapsed in a year's time and Labour got back in? There would be nothing to stop them reinstating s.58.

Ironically, if the Government reversed s.58 it would also let HMRC off the hook. It would give the impression that they, as an organisation, had simply got caught up in party politics.

The issues raised by s.58 are perhaps far too fundamental to be decided on the whim of politicians.

[silver_lining]

My guess is if Gauke was put on the spot, he might argue that this is too important an issue to be decided politically. You might view this as a "cop out" but he would have a point.

If the new Government were to reverse the legislation, then it could trivialise the matter by making it just look like a difference of opinion/policy between them and Labour.

Also, suppose the coalition collapsed in a year's time and Labour got back in? There would be nothing to stop them reinstating s.58.

Ironically, if the Government reversed s.58 it would also let HMRC off the hook. It would give the impression that they, as an organisation, had simply got caught up in party politics.

The issues raised by s.58 are perhaps far too fundamental to be decided on the whim of politicians.

DR, with all due respect, I think you are over analysing there view.

I don't think they [new GOV] don’t give a flying fork, too much else to be getting on with. It is simple hassle.

[Toocan]

But so will Hector - big style.

HMRC are guilty of exploiting their enormous authority in ways that would normally be considered illegal. Ultimately it will be proven that the avoidance scheme that we adopted was legal and fully transparent. It was technically understood by Hector and accepted as a legal tax planning (avoidance) measure for almost 7 years. Backdating the change in the law was only achieved by misleading Parliament. Someone should be locked in the Tower for that!!

Hold it..... HMRC were told that this scheme was possible in 1987 - they admitted as much on their OWN website. That means they failed to act not for 7 years but for 21 years.

And let's not forget that the 1987 "Padmore" legislation does not give them any excuse - it was a different scheme and NO ONE paid a penny more tax as a result of it.

But I do agree with the rest of your post

[DonkeyRhubarb]

DR, with all due respect, I think you are over analysing there view.

I don't think they [new GOV] don’t give a flying fork, too much else to be getting on with. It is simple hassle.

Yes, you're probably right and we're nothing more than just a minor irritation.

[OnYourBikeGB]

DR, with all due respect, I think you are over analysing there view.

I don't think they [new GOV] don’t give a flying fork, too much else to be getting on with. It is simple hassle.

Tbh, I think they aren't acting because they can't be seen to be going soft on us when they're cutting 600,000 public sector jobs. We might even be a sop to the Lib Dems. They are happy to leave it to the legal course, because they can wash their hands of it, while still making their 'disapprove in concept' remarks. If the legal system lets us off, then it can be blamed, if judiciary backs and is scathing of the law, then they'll blame Labour and all the money they wasted. Paradoxically, it's what happens if they win, that the Government should be worried about. Because then they will be shown up to be hypocrites unless they stand up for what they have previously said. It's because of this that we must stay visible. They have to know that if we lose, we will be holding them to account, and we will be vocal. If we stop pushing, they will leave us to be steam-rollered because no-one is going to notice.

In for the £100, btw!

[swede]

... it's what happens if they win, that the Government should be worried about. Because then they will be shown up to be hypocrites unless they stand up for what they have previously said. It's because of this that we must stay visible.

Completely agree. This is a *real* issue affecting *real* people in *THEIR* constituencies.

Come the time of the appeal , I'll be hitting F5 on the browser here again all day with my heart in my throat - they need to feel our collective anxiety over this.

[harrinp1]

Nick Clegg calls for law repeal ideas

Nick Clegg is to ask the public to nominate laws and regulations they would like to see abolished.

...

BBC News - Nick Clegg calls for law repeal ideas

[Ninja]

Padmore relevance

Hold it..... HMRC were told that this scheme was possible in 1987 - they admitted as much on their OWN website. That means they failed to act not for 7 years but for 21 years.

And let's not forget that the 1987 "Padmore" legislation does not give them any excuse - it was a different scheme and NO ONE paid a penny more tax as a result of it.

But I do agree with the rest of your post

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Parker establish at the JR that Padmore wasn't relevant? Or have I misunderstood?