BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

I spoke to a guy recently who hasn't told his wife. He wanted to tell her at the beginning but kept putting it off. Eventually it just got to a point where it seemed too late to say anything.

He is truly praying that she never needs to find out because he knows they'll lose the house.

I can't begin to imagine what it's like living with that hanging over you. The defeat in the High Court affected him very badly.

DR, rather makes the whole trash of Public Policy, faireness and all, rather irrelevant doesn't it? That some people might end up worse off in how their lives become than people who get 6 months suspended sentences and a driving ban for 12 months for killing someone whilst drunk behind the wheel is not what I consider fair. And I think that characterises the whole retrospective issue. Those that came up with this sham of BN66 should be ashamed to be part of the human race.

But perhaps, this is what it's all about. Go after us to set the bar on tax avoidance. Simply to put people off. The nuclear option is there and it's been deployed. But not because of some hidden illegal tax evasion. Oh no, amnesty is the order of the day for that CRIMINAL act. The nuke option is far far worse. Not applied to that group, but to those who never lied to HMRC or witheld their arrangements from their view. Not sure I see what "public interest" exists unless you're part of the baying mob, demanding a hanging and the Hector henchmen are egging them on. Well I hope the Judiciary at least still believe in the written Law and Statute. The monster created by NuLabour needs to be reminded it is not a master but a servant.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The wording of the ruling when it comes may end up being as (if not) more significant than the win / lose.

100% agree with you.

I'm not being pessimistic or anything but personally I'm not expecting a win at this stage.

However, even if we lost 3-0, the wording of the judgment will, as you rightly say, be very important.

[OnYourBikeGB]

I spoke to a guy recently who hasn't told his wife. He wanted to tell her at the beginning but kept putting it off. Eventually it just got to a point where it seemed too late to say anything.

He is truly praying that she never needs to find out because he knows they'll lose the house.

I can't begin to imagine what it's like living with that hanging over you. The defeat in the High Court affected him very badly.

I read a very interesting book at the weekend, it was a scientific study of, among other things, why people comply with instructions even when their subconscious is questioning the morality of what they are doing. Part of it refers to the infamous Milgram experiment, in case you're feeling curious, you can read about it here.
Milgram experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway my point for going off on this tangent is that I hope that the HMRC 'team', Brannigan et al, that implemented this, and your friends in politics, read a few of the previous posts. Look outside your world and jobs, and ask yourself, did you really want to do this to ordinary people? You could have changed the law 8 or 9 years ago. What you have done, and it was you personally, not your office or branch, is implemented a sadistic, cruel and twisted law, because you never stopped to question what you were doing. When you get home, have a look into your wife and kids eyes, and stop to think, you have destroyed lives, just like theirs.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

100% agree with you.

I'm not being pessimistic or anything but personally I'm not expecting a win at this stage.

However, even if we lost 3-0, the wording of the judgment will, as you rightly say, be very important.

Indeed. And like the wording at the HC, it will say a lot about where our chances lie. What I think was so shocking was that Parker seemed to have not compunction to consider the points that have come up here over and over. It was as though he was HMRC ruling. In hindsight, we may have been naive to think the HC was a place to get a win. This is simply far too big for the HC to rule on. The CoA is the true first test. And as you say, losing 3-0 is not the worst thing to consider. It's what the ruling says. There is much more for the LJ's to consider than Parker. I suspect that LE will be truly in play here and there must be questions if retro law is to be considered to reflect on retro actions and the like. Until someone says "HMRC did what?" and chooses to "look through" their behaviour as they chose to do with the scheme, then we won't really know what the Judiciary can do for us.

When the ruling comes, it would be good to remind ourselves to pause. Whether we win or lose, refrain from reaction since the ruling will need to be thoroughly read and considered.

Don't know about anyone else, but after 3 months I can't help but get a feeling of anticipation that grows daily. There is a sublime build up and as time passes it will build to a peak but in between there is a vacuum of uncertainty. The emotions, ups and downs are more in focus now than ever. But for me, I consider this ruling the first true test of where we stand. And we stand together nonetheless. Masse Allez. Yes people will find themselves in dark places over this, but I'd sooner be part of the wood behind a single arrow head than not.

You might be right DR, I feel the SC is where the Last Stand will be. But, the CoA will be where we know how the final battle takes shape. That's why the wording counts.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

I hope I get this right...

If you heard someone saying this on a matter that will have huge ramifications on the lives of many then you'd be forgiven for having some grave concerns over how certain they were of what they were about to expunge.

Well if you recall Jane Kennedy in Parliament during the debating stages of BN66 as quoted in Hansard, that is exactly how she started an explanation of why BN66 was needed.

I think that about sums up the due diligence done by "Parliament" on this matter. To "hope" you get it right is simply not good enough to get something as significant as BN66 on the books.

I "hope" that the CoA consider such gambles when they consider their judgement. Or take Timms quote of 200M risk to the Exchequer. Parker reckons it was 100M. Which is it? There's a 100% delta between the two.

You see, apart from the abstract (and non Statute) references by HMRC to such concepts as artificial and aggressive and the like, you find yourself looking at facts of which 2 are rather striking:

I hope I get this right (me too, but sorry you didn't)
Courts do not like to overule Parliament. But it wasn't Parliament that knew what they were implementing. That was the Civil Service and I don't find any such concerns for the Judiciary on that. And on that basis, if Parliament were not certain of what they were implementing (quote JK), then that means Royal Assent meant the Monarch could not have known what she was sanctioning. And I really hope the Judiciary are non too chuffed by that.

So take away the wrapping and the buck stops somewhere for this rot. And you know where that takes us...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

That some people might end up worse off in how their lives become than people who get 6 months suspended sentences and a driving ban for 12 months for killing someone whilst drunk behind the wheel is not what I consider fair. .

Funny you should say that because one guy asked me a while back whether there was any way he could do time instead of his wife and kids losing the house. He wasn't joking either.

Of course, the "nice" folk at HMRC who gave evidence at the JR said people brought all this on themselves by not paying on account or putting the money on one side. Nothing to do with them you understand.

[BolshieBastard]

The only reason that HMRC managed to get s.58 into law was because we had the runt of a bankrupt government at the end of its days trying to find cash from whereever they could. Ask yourself this, if s.58 was presented to Parliament today - do you think it would be voted into law? No chance at all.

Sorry but you are deluded or naive if you believe that's the case. Despite what gawke said pre election, he's more than happy to let this charade continue.

He could stop this yesterday if he wanted but chooses not to.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Funny you should say that because one guy asked me a while back whether there was any way he could do time instead of his wife and kids losing the house. He wasn't joking either.

Of course, the "nice" folk at HMRC who gave evidence at the JR said people brought all this on themselves by not paying on account or putting the money on one side. Nothing to do with them you understand.

Oddly, getting off "light" for a criminal offence such as this where you know before you enter into the act it is fully illegal and getting caught only comes as a result of an accident is rather like evasion. Or should he/she in such a circumstance have put money aside to pay for a taxi, just in case?

I feel for anyone who would consider doing time to preserve their matrimonial home. Asking to be criminalised for a legal action pretty much sums up how this HMRC howler will work if allowed to go ahead.

But, possibly HMRC need to have this battle with tax avoidance and evasion and for them it's actually good to have despite what they say about the "Tax Gap". I mean, if it was closed, HMRC would consist of 10 intern accountant wanna be's with an abacus to collect tax. Another 100,000 public "servants" laid off. Come to think of it, if it was not for us and others that follow Adam Smith's call, there would be no accountants either. Just a collection tin in the local church and happy people.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Anyway my point for going off on this tangent is that I hope that the HMRC 'team', Brannigan et al, that implemented this, and your friends in politics, read a few of the previous posts. Look outside your world and jobs, and ask yourself, did you really want to do this to ordinary people? You could have changed the law 8 or 9 years ago. What you have done, and it was you personally, not your office or branch, is implemented a sadistic, cruel and twisted law, because you never stopped to question what you were doing. When you get home, have a look into your wife and kids eyes, and stop to think, you have destroyed lives, just like theirs.

Trust me, they couldn't care less what happens to any of us or our families.

My brother-in-law used to work for the HMRC investigations branch and he says they love inflicting pain and misery.

The only thing which would bother them is if there's any comeback on them personally.

[SantaClaus]

Trust me, they couldn't care less what happens to any of us or our families.

My brother-in-law used to work for the HMRC investigations branch and he says they love inflicting pain and misery.

The only thing which would bother them is if there's any comeback on them personally.

Can't speak for myself, but I'm sure some of the "loose cannons" will bear that in mind.