• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    BBC Radio 4: Clive Anderson - Unreliable Evidence on Tax Avoidance

    This was on this evening.....

    BBC iPlayer - Unreliable Evidence: Tax
    Ninja

    'Salad is a dish best served cold'

    Comment


      Originally posted by Leyther70 View Post
      Not surprisingly the link isnt working, what was the outcome of that case?
      The courts website is a bit flakey but it's working now. The judgment isn't being handed down til next week.

      Case Tracker for Civil Appeals

      The point I was making was more the length of time it's taken (nearly 9 months).

      Comment


        Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
        I will see what the PwC side make of it and report back.
        Hi DR,

        Regards: European Commission Objects to UK Investment Law

        Did you ever get any feedback regards this??

        Comment


          Originally posted by Fireship View Post
          Hi DR,

          Regards: European Commission Objects to UK Investment Law

          Did you ever get any feedback regards this??
          No but I'll ask PwC again.

          Montp think it may be significant.

          Comment


            Just touched base with PwC.

            They think the EC ruling could be significant but there's no way of second guessing what's in the minds of the judges and whether they've taken this on board.

            All we can do is wait and see.

            Comment


              I just notice this interesting text in article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...

              No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
              The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

              Comment


                Originally posted by javadude View Post
                I just notice this interesting text in article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...



                The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
                Sadly, that only applies to criminal law. There is wider margin of appreciation given to Parliaments in terms of tax law. Our case is about Broon and his cohorts overstepping that margin of appreciation.
                Join the No To Retro Tax Campaign Now
                "Tax evasion is easy: it involves breaking the law. By tax avoidance OECD means unacceptable avoidance ... This can be contrasted with acceptable tax planning. What is critical is transparency" - Donald Johnston, Secretary-General, OECD

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Emigre View Post
                  Sadly, that only applies to criminal law. There is wider margin of appreciation given to Parliaments in terms of tax law. Our case is about Broon and his cohorts overstepping that margin of appreciation.
                  And the wide margin of appreciation is balanced with Legitimate Expectation. And the latter has not been ruled on (yet).

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
                    Just touched base with PwC.

                    They think the EC ruling could be significant but there's no way of second guessing what's in the minds of the judges and whether they've taken this on board.

                    All we can do is wait and see.
                    Well if PWC aad Montpelier think it significant, you would think that the judges must be looking at this very carefully. Just maybe, this ruling has caught them by surprise and hence the lengthy deliberation

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
                      Just touched base with PwC.

                      They think the EC ruling could be significant but there's no way of second guessing what's in the minds of the judges and whether they've taken this on board.

                      All we can do is wait and see.
                      Thanks DR, much appreciated.....

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X