BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Balls to chrystals

Boyz make a good observation. Out of 3000+ people there may be a few chancers. But the notion that I could have or should have seen this possibility is simply ridiculous. Why? Because the scheme was fully transparent and declared. That was a big consideration for me when joining. After all, nothing to hide nothing to fear. And if I knew as much about Padmore then as I do now, I'd have been even more inclined since Padmore specifically prevented retrospective taxation. It was engineered specifically to prevent a tax windfall. I bet if you look close enough, you'd even find IR documents stating this and even going as far as stating that using retrospection to make something that was legal yesterday illegal today would be objectionable if it caused a penality on folks.

No I'm sorry. The only reason retrospective penalties have been applied is because of HMRC incompetence. Should I have seen that? In hindsight yes. But the notion that they'd then make up for their own farce by penalising me for their failures is something I would not have considered then. Why, because that would be a breach of my Human Rights - to take "possessions" I had legally gained and then take them away later (retrosepctively) due to incompetence is penalising the wrong people.

In any event, it means anyone has to consider being penalised retrospectively if the authorities decide that something they simply don't like can be made illegal in the future as though it was today. Time travel is great aint it?

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Clarified

Even had we been made aware of the 1987 legislation, which s58 supposedly "clarifies", there's nothing there to suggest anyone in the future would ever be clobbered for back tax.

On the contrary, the 1987 legislation specifically excludes that possibility.

I would encourage everyone to read the following Inland Revenue document from 1987, especially points 13 & 14 on page 5.

Legislation should not be retrospective

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...0Bill.1987.pdf

Funny that. "The purpose of retrospection in this Clause is to prevent taxpayers obtaining such a windfall tax advantage, not to inflict and unexpected tax charge on the unwary".

So there it is Justice Parker. So Padmore was specifically engineered to prevent an unexpected tax charge. But if BN66 clarifies Padmore, then has it not also clarified this point?

Further point 20 states that "the Clause is sufficiently clear...". Well not according to BN66.

Ah, the irony.

[sjw]

Even had we been made aware of the 1987 legislation, which s58 supposedly "clarifies", there's nothing there to suggest anyone in the future would ever be clobbered for back tax.

On the contrary, the 1987 legislation specifically excludes that possibility.

I would encourage everyone to read the following Inland Revenue document from 1987, especially points 13 & 14 on page 5.

Legislation should not be retrospective

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...0Bill.1987.pdf

I think there is a distinction to made here - retrospective action was not ruled out by the EU legislation if it was felt that the scheme in place was artificial. However we need to understand what that means - I believe the standard interpretation is that a restrospective action is one that can change the treatment of a structure already in place prior to the regulation being introduced going forward from that point. BN66 is actually retroactive - it changes the structure from a point in time in the past. It's subtle but key.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

I think there is a distinction to made here - retrospective action was not ruled out by the EU legislation if it was felt that the scheme in place was artificial. However we need to understand what that means - I believe the standard interpretation is that a restrospective action is one that can change the treatment of a structure already in place prior to the regulation being introduced going forward from that point. BN66 is actually retroactive - it changes the structure from a point in time in the past. It's subtle but key.

Good 'eavans. So the wording of BN66 is actually wrong too? And it's suggested I should see this coming? Not even sure what I was meant to see. Retroactive, retrospective. Blimey. But going by the wording of BN66 which is law, it claims that BN66 is retrospective as was the 1987 legislation. But on that basis, what retrospection does is the complete opposite. Not so much a clarification as a complete U-turn. One law expressly prevents a retrospective tax whilst the other explicitly applies one. I'm so confused now that I'm not even sure what my argument is that I need to defend! But I'll give it a go.

Should I have seen a retroactive change in the law that is retrospective because the law it clarifies was also retrospective even though that law expressly prevented an unexpected tax on the unwary (me) whilst the new law expressly ensures that I'll receive exactly that? Not sure who could anticipate that (except Parker possibly).

And HMRC claim that the 1987 legislation was the clear signal? Clear as mud. You'd have to be mentally ill to architect this stuff.

[sjw]

Good 'eavans. So the wording of BN66 is actually wrong too? And it's suggested I should see this coming? Not even sure what I was meant to see. Retroactive, retrospective. Blimey. But going by the wording of BN66 which is law, it claims that BN66 is retrospective as was the 1987 legislation. But on that basis, what retrospection does is the complete opposite. Not so much a clarification as a complete U-turn. One law expressly prevents a retrospective tax whilst the other explicitly applies one. I'm so confused now that I'm not even sure what my argument is that I need to defend! But I'll give it a go.

Should I have seen a retroactive change in the law that is retrospective because the law it clarifies was also retrospective even though that law expressly prevented an unexpected tax on the unwary (me) whilst the new law expressly ensures that I'll receive exactly that? Not sure who could anticipate that (except Parker possibly).

And HMRC claim that the 1987 legislation was the clear signal? Clear as mud. You'd have to be mentally ill to architect this stuff.

Let's just hope our learned friends have a dictionary to hand...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

You'd have to be mentally ill to architect this stuff.

Or a bunch of

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Point 13

Well I'm glad the the then IR made that statement.

"This is not the case where a taxpayer has arranged his affairs on the basis of existing law as generally understood and the law is then changed with retrospective effect so that he finds himself faced with unexpected - and unprovided for - liability for the past years. Retrospection in such circumstances would be open to objection".

Quite right mate. And I'm objecting as you rightly say, right now in the CoA. Thanks for the tip off.

[SIS]

Latest news?

hi,

only just found this forum today, while searching for any news.

Any solid information yet or indeed, indication of when the outcome should be known.


ta
(this whole thing is causing literally sleepless nights for me + Mrs)

[smalldog]

any news anyone??

[swede]

any news anyone??