BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[centurian]

Lobby that! a published scheme, run by the government can not be back dated because to do so would be unfair and inappropriate, lets argue a consistent approach should at least be taken.....

During the expenses scandal, when it was suggested that more expenses money be returned, several MP's duly squawked "you can't change the rules retrospectively".

BBC NEWS | Politics | MP challenging expenses auditor

Co-incidentally, the same MP voted for for the 2008 Finance Bill, so he didn't have a problem with retrospection when it applied to someone else

[OnYourBikeGB]

There are case studies on their website, but I doubt they have ever encountered a set of circumstances comparable to ours.

Our case hasn't been described as unprecedented for nothing!!!

The Whitehouse Consultancy | Specialists in public and parliamentary affairs | CASE STUDIES

The fact is the Government have clearly stated their position in the following Parliamentary answer, so the chances of any lobbying changing this are very slim.

Double Taxation: 24 Jun 2010: Written answers and statements (TheyWorkForYou.com)

We would have to treat this as a "very little to lose" venture rather than going in with any great expectations.

I'm happy to chip in. Tbh, I think they'd be more effective if we win the appeal. If we lose, it's hard to see how effective they would be unless we were certain it's heading to the Supreme Court / Europe.

[Toocan]

Sorry DR but this is a total waste of money imo. I've now had a reply from Gauke via my MP regarding why he was so vermently against BN66 retrospective legislation when in opposition but now wont do anything.

His reply is that while he is still against retrospective legislation, the case 'must now be allowed to run its course.'

If Mr Gauke wants an example where Parliament changed the law while a case was in the courts then he need look no further than the 1987 'Padmore' legislation.

The fact is that s.58 is wrong. I suspect it will be politically easier if we win this in the courts, rather than have Parliament change the law.

The Finance Act 2011 'preview' has draft legislation that closes some of the loan schemes that are in use - but not retrospectively. It will affect some of the same people, people who are using the schemes for the same reasons (IR35 certainty) as the DTA scheme and yet it is NOT retrospective.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Sorry DR but this is a total waste of money imo.

BB, I'm probably almost as sceptical as you. It could even be argued that this would be throwing good money after bad.

However, I'm looking at it slightly differently.

Say someone was facing a liability of £100,000 and they contributed £200 to a lobbying campaign. This would give odds of 500:1.

Even if it is a complete shot in the dark, those don't seem like bad odds to me.

[TheBarCapBoyz]

The Finance Act 2011 'preview' has draft legislation that closes some of the loan schemes that are in use - but not retrospectively. It will affect some of the same people, people who are using the schemes for the same reasons (IR35 certainty) as the DTA scheme and yet it is NOT retrospective.

Not retrospective, but HMRC are still trying to pull a fast one with the EBT loan schemes.

Specifically, last week HM Revenue & Customs published draft legislation in respect of changes to be made to the law from 6 April 2011. They also published ‘anti-forestalling provisions’ which attempt to make the proposed legislative changes effective from last Friday.

In essence the legislation purports to make loans made on or after 9 December 2010 by EBT taxable as employment income.

How can they get away with enforcing legislation before it has even become law?

Another memorable Christmas present from the Scum.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

How can they get away with enforcing legislation before it has even become law?

This falls within the Rees rules, whereby it is generally accepted practise to permit legislation to be backdated to the date it was announced.

Had this happened with BN66, then it would have been backdated to 12th March 2008.

If you think about it, all Finance Acts are like this. The proposed provisions get announced and take effect from the Budget in April but don't actually become law until the Bill receives royal assent in July.

By the way, the timing of the EBT announcement was designed to stop these schemes being used to pay this year's City bonuses.

[Toocan]

By the way, the timing of the EBT announcement was designed to stop these schemes being used to pay this year's City bonuses.

Which is silly - the only way HMRC will stop "schemes" being used in this way is by simplifing the tax law.

There was a time when contractors operating through Ltd Co's paid tax at that rate - then IR35 was brought in which resulted in a multitude of avoidance schemes with the net result that HMRC lost tax. Most people on here went down the DTA scheme route (but there are others). That was closed down and people moved over to loan schemes. Now they close some of those down and people move onto other schemes.

And it's going to keep going this way because IR35 was not a clear or a fair law. s.58 was not a fair law either. Sooner or later HMRC have to take stock of the situation and realise that if they were a little more honest and upfront, they would not have these problems. As it is, they are institutionally dishonest.

[Fireship]

BB, I'm probably almost as sceptical as you. It could even be argued that this would be throwing good money after bad.

However, I'm looking at it slightly differently.

Say someone was facing a liability of £100,000 and they contributed £200 to a lobbying campaign. This would give odds of 500:1.

Even if it is a complete shot in the dark, those don't seem like bad odds to me.

Count me in DR...

It certainly can’t hurt and what’s more professional lobbying is a very persuasive string to our bow that we’re currently missing!!

The odds may be long but if enough of us chip in the individual outlay will be less than the cost of a good night out – well worth the investment if you ask me!!

[Buzby]

professional lobbying

Count me in DR...

It certainly can’t hurt and what’s more professional lobbying is a very persuasive string to our bow that we’re currently missing!!

The odds may be long but if enough of us chip in the individual outlay will be less than the cost of a good night out – well worth the investment if you ask me!!

agreed, count me in as well.

[Emigre]

Which is silly - the only way HMRC will stop "schemes" being used in this way is by simplifing the tax law.

There was a time when contractors operating through Ltd Co's paid tax at that rate - then IR35 was brought in which resulted in a multitude of avoidance schemes with the net result that HMRC lost tax. Most people on here went down the DTA scheme route (but there are others). That was closed down and people moved over to loan schemes. Now they close some of those down and people move onto other schemes.

And it's going to keep going this way because IR35 was not a clear or a fair law. s.58 was not a fair law either. Sooner or later HMRC have to take stock of the situation and realise that if they were a little more honest and upfront, they would not have these problems. As it is, they are institutionally dishonest.

Spot on Toocan. Through PSCs we paid a fair and proportionate amount of tax. The uncertainties of IR35 led many to look for more certainty finding more aggressive schemes available. All we want is certainty. The only certainty now is uncertainty.