Originally posted by TheBarCapBoyz
View Post
So the CoA offers the first true test of our case in terms of what the LJ's say. On a positive note, let's not forget that the following never got aired by Parker and these go to the heart of the issue with BN66:
1. Transparency - OECD defines this as the differentiator between tax avoidance and planning.
2. Test Cases that never were
3. Legitimate Expectation (the leveller for wide margin of appreciation in A1P1)
4. Padmore was not fiscally retrospective
5. Unusual protraction of resolving this by HMRC
6. HMRC treating partnerships and trusts as though they are one of the same - They are not.
And whilst I maintain that Parker fudged this issue, he also got some things wrong or used them to get off the hook:
1. "Let sleeping dogs lie" - Infers evasion and is the opposite of the actual transparency
2. Underlined double in double taxation or emphasised it more than 15 times in the diatribe to counter our claims. He simply ignores the fact that the correct amount of tax was paid in the IoM - 0%. That is not "no tax" or "nothing". It is a correctly calculated rate of tax.
And finally, Public Policy and other "soft statements" were used by HMRC and Parker over and over. The CoA should look at the law, Statute and nothing more. None of these points have yet been commented on in the Courts.
If / when they are by the CoA ruling, we'll know if these key factors give us traction.
Lack of tax calculations being determined by HMRC
Comment