BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

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

We know from the early days of this forum, and as Private Jones from Dad's Army would say, they don't like it up 'em!

[SantaClaus]

...
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...

I feel this is a very important point and one I hope the COA judges are considering. Our MP's had no idea that they were voting through retrospective legislation because Timms and Kennedy mislead Parliament into believing they were voting for a "clarification" to existing law.

Because the Finance Bill received Queen's assent on this premise, it would be fair to say that Her Majesty was deceived and some might view this as treason.

I wonder if we could get 3000 affected scheme users to chip in some funds to bring the instigators of the finance bill to court for Treason (or can only the Queen do that?). Not sure how it would work, but it would be fun

[Toocan]

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.

I think that would be political interference with the courts.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

BN66: The Chemistry Experiment That Went Wrong

If you take a constant and mix it with a variable, the outcome generates a variance or delta. That is, the result will vary or never be the same. Or uncertain.

The Scheme was a constant. It never changed in form or application.
HMRC was the variable. To say they consistently stated the scheme did not work is folly since the reasons given varied. This includes Archer-Shee, the Taxes Act, Test Cases and then finally BN66. On any level, saying something does not work can be made as a consistent statement, but the application in our case was always variable. Therefore, HMRC were variable.

Now roll forward to 2008. BN66 re-dresses this by making sure that the scheme and the legislation were both constants. The Scheme was defined with the same character as Padmore (Partnerships) whilst it was a Trust was nonetheless treated as one of the same. OK, let that slide for a second. Padmore was and is a constant. BN66 says so as it is merely a clarification. So allow the re-definition of the scheme as a constant the same as Padmore and allow that BN66 is only a clarification.

Well, applying a little chemistry, then the same interaction of the same 2 constants should produce the same results albeit 20 odd years later. You'd hope so anyways. I mean, mixing 2 constants such as Oxygen and Hydrogen in a rocket motor should produce the same interaction and therefore the same result. Otherwise who would go on top of a rocket twice? Of course there are external influences that affect the result. O rings come to mind. But no such influences apply here. BN66 says so. What was in 1987 is the same today. BUT:

So with only a clarification of the same constants as in 1987 you end up with a juxtaposed result. One taxes people deliberately and specifically, the other explicitly prevents this. So a 100% difference in the results with the same 2 constants being applied according to BN66. How so? Science does not permit it.

Only an external influence or to put it another way, an external interference of the predictable (certain) experiment must be at play. The only possibilities are these:

1. HMRC are not applying the same "method".
2. BN66 is not a clarification but a change (variance).
3. Both of the above.

The conclusion is that the outcome is uncertain and variable and is not what would be expected or predicted. Hope that the LJ's enjoyed chemistry at school...

[Freelancer1]

IOM Govt provides funds to the legal reserve fund

In the IOM Budget today the IOM Treasury Minister decided to re-allocate £2m to the Legal Reserve Fund...looks like they decided to put some money there in anticipation perhaps of the IOM Police having to pay out to MP....

[BolshieBastard]

I think that would be political interference with the courts.

If he told the court what judgement to deliver, then yes I agree. Bit like Parker, eh?

But, a case, whether civil or criminal, can be dropped at any time. gawke could instigate this if he wanted. That wouldnt be interferring with the courts in any way shape or form.

So why doesnt he do it?

[Toocan]

If he told the court what judgement to deliver, then yes I agree. Bit like Parker, eh?

But, a case, whether civil or criminal, can be dropped at any time. gawke could instigate this if he wanted. That wouldnt be interferring with the courts in any way shape or form.

So why doesnt he do it?

I’m not sure if you’ll agree with me BB but this is how I see it: The Tories have gotten into bed with the LibDems and the LibDems have a bee I their bonnet about tax avoidance. There are some hard line elements who this matters to who have been invading shops such as Topshop/BHS recently. They were targeting Philip Green in that case as a famous tax avoider. They rather miss the point that he provides a livelihood for thousands of people and pays more tax than they will ever know how to count.

Really, when you boil it down, tax avoidance must provide a competitive advantage to the UK in general – otherwise successive governments would have clamped down on it years ago. The same goes for Non-doms. Perhaps that is a subject for another post however.

I believe it is politically expedient for Gauke to “allow” this case to go through the courts. He argued OUR case prior to the election so he really doesn’t need to do any investigating.

I don’t know if you have much contact with others who have become caught up in this – many of them are in complete denial and if we were to ultimately lose I suspect that there will be a lot of people who simply will not be able to cope. The stress has already caused marriage breakups and other problems – if HMRC bankrupt individuals as well then perhaps those individuals won’t have much left. There are a LOT of people involved in this. S.58 is the opposite of justice.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Really, when you boil it down, tax avoidance must provide a competitive advantage to the UK in general – otherwise successive governments would have clamped down on it years ago. The same goes for Non-doms. Perhaps that is a subject for another post however.

I agree. I remember Bono pointing out something very similar when he was being called a hypocrite for moving his money off-shore from the Republic of Ireland. He pointed out that that Ireland had historically offered very attractive tax breaks to foreign companies to bring money to Ireland and away from home countries of the various industries. In other words, the Irish Government were the hypocrites, not him, and they actively promoted tax-avoidance at the expense of other nations. The same as the UK.

Not stopping this case has a number of benefits to the Government. If they stop it, they will be portrayed as being soft on tax avoiders, while tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs. If the case is lost, they can claim that it was poor legislation, implemented by a runt-end Government, and drop the retrospection, while tutting about those evil tax-avoiders. It may get uncomfortable for them if HMRC win. I have wondered if political pressure may be brought to bear to delay collection, but its only a thought, to avoid the potential damage to business confidence, and possibly campaigns to apply retrospection to some of their dodgy dealings with the likes of Green and Vodaphone or even MPs (notice how they avoided interest when they had to repay their expenses, and the limited retrospection). I mean, if it's sauce for the goose ...

It's true, they have no back-bone, they have no principles, they are hypocrites. That's what we've come to expect.

[seadog]

I agree. I remember Bono pointing out something very similar when he was being called a hypocrite for moving his money off-shore from the Republic of Ireland. He pointed out that that Ireland had historically offered very attractive tax breaks to foreign companies to bring money to Ireland and away from home countries of the various industries. In other words, the Irish Government were the hypocrites, not him, and they actively promoted tax-avoidance at the expense of other nations. The same as the UK.

Not stopping this case has a number of benefits to the Government. If they stop it, they will be portrayed as being soft on tax avoiders, while tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs. If the case is lost, they can claim that it was poor legislation, implemented by a runt-end Government, and drop the retrospection, while tutting about those evil tax-avoiders. It may get uncomfortable for them if HMRC win. I have wondered if political pressure may be brought to bear to delay collection, but its only a thought, to avoid the potential damage to business confidence, and possibly campaigns to apply retrospection to some of their dodgy dealings with the likes of Green and Vodaphone or even MPs (notice how they avoided interest when they had to repay their expenses, and the limited retrospection). I mean, if it's sauce for the goose ...

It's true, they have no back-bone, they have no principles, they are hypocrites. That's what we've come to expect.

You raise an interesting point when you suggest that political pressure might be brought to delay collection.

When we get the CoA decision there are a number of options,

1:-It could be a resounding win in which case HMRC need to consider if to appeal to the Supreme Court. Should we be ready to campaign for HMRC to drop the case?

2:- If we lose the CoA we expect MontP and PwC will try to appeal to the Supreme Court and even take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

3:- If we lose the CoA on a legal technicality but HMRC are heavily critised we may have the oppoertunity to make a formal complaint about HMRC and eventually take a case to the Ombudsman citing HMRC/Treasury behaviour and Timms/Kennedy misleading Parlaiment.

There is a compelling amount of evidence about the way in which HMRC have behaved including severe criticism form profesional bodies such as CIOT, Law Society legal commentators etc who all think S58 is a disgrace and that the way parliament was mislead was outrageous.

So even if the CoA is lost this still has a long way to run.

[Fireship]

Supreme Court in action

Just goes to show that the Supreme Court are not afraid to tackle contentious issues no matter how the public or government may feel about the matter:

BBC News - Offenders on sex register for life to get appeal right

“Mr Clegg said the government had to act on the ruling, which cannot be appealed.”

At least if we end up in front of these guys we know we’ll get a fair hearing and that they won’t bow to government/HMRC/public opinions!!