BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[ALMAC]

Alan,

Now that you have made the suggestion about settlement with HMRC can you kindly expand a little on why you think the DTA scheme did not work.

When HMRC issued TN63 circa 2001/2 it is clear that they thought it did work and since they were not confident about taking it to a tax tribunal on the Archer Shee and Ramsey arguments etc what was the "obscure technical case" which you think scuppered the DTA scheme and why did HMRC not pursue that point in any of its letters or bring it up in the court hearings.

Anyone else think that HMRC are getting the wind up about the COA decision and have sent out AJ to test the waters re settlement?

[TalkingCheese]

Anyone else think that HMRC are getting the wind up about the COA decision and have sent out AJ to test the waters re settlement?

Yup. I had the exact same thoughts !

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Anyone else think that HMRC are getting the wind up about the COA decision and have sent out AJ to test the waters re settlement?

If that were true it would be hilarious.

Having said that, he does seem to be taking a very keen interest in the loan schemes as well.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Technical Exchange 63 was published on 31st July 2002.

This would have been just before Alan entered into negotiations with HMRC to settle on behalf of the Suo Motu clients.

I bet they didn't show him this!!!

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...Issue%2063.pdf

What I find odd is the text that states:

"We are considering how best to challenge the scheme".

Given TN63 is dated July 2002, I'm really struggling to understand why it took them from then until Autumn 2007 to finalise that "consideration". After all HMRC testimony stated that HMRC "looked at this again in Autumn 2007". So pretty clear that the scheme worked and they considered (not) how to challenge it for 5 long years. And Seadog's point about why it never went before the SC was because HMRC knew they would lose. Retrospection to hide one's own failures is not what I would define as "proportionate".

[screwthis]

What is the starting point under BN66 is it your 97% or (using your e.g.) my 97-15 = 82%

It's the 82% idiot.

SO it could be the starting point AND i did say it was Theoreticla

PLUS it was only a suggestion.

I was not commenting on right and wrongs of the case BECAUSE i verily believe that if they scrapped BN66 (still a chance they could do this by muddying waters with a suspension of IR35- outside chance of this next week) and the case went to court on the facts (facts may be different to Counsel Opinion) you would lose.

Of course it's theoretical because it's an idiotic suggestion that has no chance of working...Read my post again to note the word theoretical.

I'm not commenting on the rights and wrongs of the case either or indeed of a settlement, just that only 3% tax was paid and if in a parallel universe there were to be a settlement they would be looking to make up the difference of what they believed they should have received not what MP received. If not then they would be deducting 15% from our CNs.

Very defensive on a legitimate flaw to your suggestion.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Changing the subject, this case involving HMRC which was heard a couple of weeks after ours is due a judgment next week.

Case Tracker for Civil Appeals

This was a complex tax case, coincidentally also involving double taxation.

The taxpayer won in the High Court, and HMRC were appealing.

EWHC 609 (2010) Bayfine UK v HMRC - Tax Strategies and Tax Advice - EDF Tax LLP

It has taken 4 months from appeal hearing to get a decision.

[screwthis]

Changing the subject, this case involving HMRC which was heard a couple of weeks after ours is due a judgment next week.

Case Tracker for Civil Appeals

This was a complex tax case, coincidentally also involving double taxation.

The taxpayer won in the High Court, and HMRC were appealing.

EWHC 609 (2010) Bayfine UK v HMRC - Tax Strategies and Tax Advice - EDF Tax LLP

It has taken 4 months from appeal hearing to get a decision.

"Despite the transactions being entirely bereft of any commercial purpose other than to create losses for utilization as Group Relief the High Court found that the Double Taxation Relief was due. When the facts were applied to the law the relief was due. "

Interesting.. so despite the scheme being "wholly artificial" the courts found in favour of the tax payer.

Strengthens our belief that we would have won if the court case was a technical argument about legality of our scheme.

[Alan Jones]

I might pop round and introduce myself one afternoon.

Yep, feel free, always happy to have a chat and coffee.

[Alan Jones]

Cn's

If not then they would be deducting 15% from our CNs.

Take a closer look at your CNs.
Is your taxable income
(a) the amount you received from the Trust or
(b) the amount you received from the trust PLUS the fee paid to MP.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Take a closer look at your CNs.
Is your taxable income
(a) the amount you received from the Trust or
(b) the amount you received from the trust PLUS the fee paid to MP.

Neither. In fact I cannot fathom what it is. But it doesn't add up to any amount that any tax calculator shows even in the worst case not even the rubbish one on HMRC's website. And that's after "looking through" the manual edits and cross outs that seem to contradict the printed stuff. Makes me feel that the bod who did the CN's really knew what they were doing...

Probably worth a note that there is no taxable income anyways since the correct tax was paid in the IoM and under the DTA cannot be taxed twice. TN63....

So to be more precise, the taxable income is NOWT.

Good weekend all.