BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[nick4notax]

Time to write, once again, to our MPs?

Hi all,

Just wondering if it would be a good idea to send letters to our MPs, regardless of the outcome of the current case? After all, whether we win or not, I've read we should still invite our MPs to table an amendment to S58 to not apply restrospectivity beyond March 2008, given TN63 and certain Labour party (at the time) ministers who sought to suppress any mention of it to parliament while S58 was being discussed.

Just a thought....

Anyway, wish you all a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, etc.

Nick

[Slobbo]

Merry Xmas or Not

I'm of two minds whether I want to here before Xmas (looking unlikely now).

Part of me thinks that it would be nice to hear before Xmas if we win. What a celebration Xmas will be then. The other part says if we hear and its bad then it will ruin Xmas.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I'm of two minds whether I want to here before Xmas (looking unlikely now).

Part of me thinks that it would be nice to hear before Xmas if we win. What a celebration Xmas will be then. The other part says if we hear and its bad then it will ruin Xmas.

Judgments are announced 2 or 3 days in advance and there is nothing scheduled beyond tomorrow, so I think it's highly unlikely we'll hear anything before Xmas.

I have a feeling we could have to wait a few more weeks since I'm assuming the judgment will cover both cases.

The PwC argument, in particular, is quite technical and it has never actually been tested in court before. This is why the Judges were so hostile because it wasn't an appeal of a prior judgment.

[centurian]

The PwC argument, in particular, is quite technical and it has never actually been tested in court before. This is why the Judges were so hostile because it wasn't an appeal of a prior judgment.

So why was it being heard by the CoA appeal then

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So why was it being heard by the CoA appeal then

It's a good question.

PwC appealed to the CoA because their JR had been refused by the High Court due to their application being late.

The CoA judges at their oral hearing decided it would make more efficient use of court time for both cases to be heard together. HMRC petitioned the court for the case to be sent back to a lower court but this was rejected.

It is probably almost unheard of for the CoA to hear a case that hasn't previously been heard in any other court.

However, I think it was a bit unfair of the judges at the full hearing to vent their frustration on PwC's counsel. At the end of the day, it was their fellow appeal court judges who created this situation by granting permission.

[BolshieBastard]

Not BN66 related but get ready for the next attack! Just when you thought it couldnt get any worse.

Government to revive 'Dracula' tax on family businesses - Telegraph

[RichardCranium]

Not BN66 related but get ready for the next attack! Just when you thought it couldnt get any worse.

Government to revive 'Dracula' tax on family businesses - Telegraph

, you doom-monger!

Better discussed here: Family business tax back on the agenda.

[smalldog]

there that 200m again!!

[phileds]

Half of these could apply to buying an ISA....

!! How true.

It's very much like the government's war on drugs. Drugs, excluding alcohol and tobacco, that is.

[centurian]

, you doom-monger!

Better discussed here: Family business tax back on the agenda.

Interesting quote from the tax director at the OTS

Mr Whiting described the IR35 rules, which attempt to prevent large companies and individuals from avoiding National Insurance contributions by operating on a contracting basis rather than an employer-employee relationship, as "the most intractable issue since the year dot".