BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Could this be sent to Huitsons Brief and also to the Judges presiding over our appeal? Donkey, you seem to be the man with the contacts?

I've forwarded it on to MP but I imagine any attempt to make contact with the LJs outside of the courtroom would be a big no-no.

[TAF4]

For the avoidance of doubt, we had no objection to the change effected by s59 FA 2008, which blocked the effectiveness of the scheme prospectively:
such action was only a surprise in that it had not happened already, given HMRC‟s knowledge of the arrangement.

Absolutely luvvit!!


This is the best I have felt about the whole deal since the CoA. I don't believe in coincidences. The CIOT is a learned and respected body. Their words will carry more weight than they did under Gauleiter Brown and his henchman who had their own ideologies to pursue.

[GottaBeOptimistic]

CIOT

This is an encouraging statement from CIOT. Very strong statement from them but I'm not sure whether they comments will carry any weight within the law courts. However, it's nice to know that serious institutes like this are very concerned about the nature of this legislation and specificaly how it has been applied to our case.

A nice end to the week......

[SantaClaus]

Very good timing on this paper. One can only assume it was deliberate.

[smalldog]

Very good timing on this paper. One can only assume it was deliberate.

too much of a coincidence for me...

[OnYourBikeGB]

Worth a read.

http://www.tax.org.uk/Resources/CIOT...OT%20Nov10.pdf

Quotes

Page 8, Point 7.4

We strongly objected to the recent Finance Act 2008 section 58, which changed the application of a double tax treaty going back 20 years[14]. Taxpayers had no warning of the apparent need for the change to the law. Quite the reverse: the HMRC manual had referred to the sort of planning which was being attacked since 1997. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the scheme, taxpayers and advisers could surely be forgiven for assuming its use was accepted – or, at any rate, not seen as warranting tackling with any urgency. In particular, there was never any indication of a need to clarify – or change – the 1987 law.[15]

[14] The legislation is currently being considered by the Courts in Huitson v HMRC [2010] EWHC 97. In our view the attack on the tax scheme undertaken by Robert Huitson, and other similar schemes, by retrospective legislation in this way was extreme and unjustified.
[15] For the avoidance of doubt, we had no objection to the change effected by s59 FA 2008, which blocked the effectiveness of the scheme prospectively: such action was only a surprise in that it had not happened already, given HMRC‟s knowledge of the arrangement.

Well worth a read, indeed, and a good way to end the week! The timing is great, one things for certain, it can't do us any harm! I'm sure these thoughts must be going through the judges minds.

[Notsonew]

Not-So-New to this Forum.

Well worth a read, indeed, and a good way to end the week! The timing is great, one things for certain, it can't do us any harm! I'm sure these thoughts must be going through the judges minds.

All,
This is my first post here. I have been visiting this forum for a while.

Just like to say :- Thanks for great work done by DR and others. Lets continue till we win and hope HMRC learn few lessions here.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Thought I'd break the silence with my 200th post. Anyone for cake?

[Corrian]

Parker

Well worth a read, indeed, and a good way to end the week! The timing is great, one things for certain, it can't do us any harm! I'm sure these thoughts must be going through the judges minds.

I wonder if Parker has read the CIOT discussion paper yet? Maybe he should, and maybe he'll learn a thing or two about the UK tax system before he passes another silly judgement in future.

[SantaClaus]

Thought I'd break the silence with my 200th post. Anyone for cake?

Yes, please! with a cherry on top.

That was for my 1900th post