BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[SantaClaus]

Indeed, and I think this quote sums up the difference between probability and reality:

Probability
Meanwhile Nathan Muir, a Guardian reading Labour voter from Highate, insisted: "If I was a multi-millionaire I would pay all my tax at the full rate because I want to help build a fair and equal society where every child has a chance to be all they can be."

Reality
Julian Cook added: "As an economist the only problem I have with that statement is that it's a massive f*****g lie."

Yeah, right Nathan! If he has a house in Highgate, he probably IS a millionare.
Yet another Glenda Jackson voting champagne socialist.

[Doug1965]

Yeah, right Nathan! If he has a house in Highgate, he probably IS a millionare.

Yes, but maybe not a multi-millionaire and that is just plain unfair .

[Slobbo]

Does anyone know if other similar schemes are directly affected by the final judgement in this case other than Montpelier? I'm looking at alternatives at the moment and wonder if other similar schemes have made subtle alteration which would protect them from any consequences of this case e.g. Darwin - anyone know anything about this one?

Can't say for sure - guess no one can really. I am on another MP scheme just now. I wouldn't be surprised if it is deemed "artificial" and therefore subject to the same retrospective rules. Just had a letter through the slot today from our friends telling me that they are looking into my most recent return. The laugh is that they state that I might owe them more (subject to interest or course) or that they might (ho ho ho) owe me money.

[KiwiGuy]

As ever, The Daily Mash has an interesting take on things:-

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politi...-201003022518/

oh thats good

[Emigre]

Can't say for sure - guess no one can really. I am on another MP scheme just now. I wouldn't be surprised if it is deemed "artificial" and therefore subject to the same retrospective rules. Just had a letter through the slot today from our friends telling me that they are looking into my most recent return. The laugh is that they state that I might owe them more (subject to interest or course) or that they might (ho ho ho) owe me money.

Just to confirm, is that your 2008/09 SAR they are launching an enquiry into? If so, and on the basis of their apparent timeliness, isn't it time you sent in a S28 request for determination and closure of their enquiries? This seems to be the course of action that Judge Parker believes we should have taken. Of course he would also probably argue that you were being unreasonable not allowing HMRC 8 years to do nothing.

[hobnob116]

BN66 silliness

Hi

Wondering about BN66 - is it specific to Montpeliers scheme or is it aimed at all artificial schemes?

I'm using a loan scheme, unsure if this is also caught by this act or if the act would need to be adjuested to get me.

[OnYourBikeGB]

I think the telling statement comes from the HoL:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8544547.stm

Note the part where they say "The commission said it did not have "retrospective powers" in this case."

Yep, no retrospection.

Surely they could be should go ahead in the anticipation that even though they don't have the powers now, that tomorrow they may have had them granted yesterday, and should therefore have known that they should have proceeded or else it wouldn't be fair on the non-non doms! Outrageous! They'll be bleating about the rules not being clear next.

Actually, good on them for telling Mandelson to f* ck off. Hypocritical pr*ck.

[swede]

Surely they could be should go ahead in the anticipation that even though they don't have the powers now, that tomorrow they may have had them granted yesterday, and should therefore have known that they should have proceeded or else it wouldn't be fair on the non-non doms! Outrageous! They'll be bleating about the rules not being clear next.

Actually, good on them for telling Mandelson to f* ck off. Hypocritical pr*ck.

Surely Cameron must be aware that dead horses, can now be resurrected via the "HMRC Tardis" for the purpose of retro-flogging?

[smalldog]

benefits culture

Heres a great example of what our government is spending all that precious cash on, people who have no sense of responsibility and who think its everyone elses job to pay for their choices, just check out the comments, people are starting to get really hacked off with the benefits culture. This was an article intended to get people to empathise with poverty but its backfired massively:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...y-per-child.do

[SantaClaus]

Heres a great example of what our government is spending all that precious cash on, people who have no sense of responsibility and who think its everyone elses job to pay for their choices, just check out the comments, people are starting to get really hacked off with the benefits culture. This was an article intended to get people to empathise with poverty but its backfired massively:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...y-per-child.do

Yep, I was amazed that the Standard decided to jump on that bandwagon. I mean, this govt. have only had 10 years to sort out child poverty. Did they only just find out about it?

Of course, the alledged 200m that we owe could have been gained from this waste of money alone:

Botched Tube privatisation wasted £410m
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-pound-410m.do

The Government wasted £410 million in its botched part-privatisation of the Tube, the Commons' spending watchdog revealed today.

In a damning indictment of the poor controls which led to the failure of Metronet, the Public Accounts Committee concluded the money was lost as a result of the Department of Transport's "inadequate management of the risks" in the way sections of the Tube were hived-off to the private sector on 30-year leases.

Metronet, the maintenance giant responsible for the Circle, District, Victoria and Bakerloo lines, went bust three years ago with debts of £2 billion.