BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I can't see HMRC taking any cases to Tax Tribunal while the matter is in the hands of the higher courts.

If appeals through the higher courts (CoA, SC) are exhausted, then HMRC would have to take one or more cases to Tribunal before they could enforce collection.

Partly this would be a matter of routine procedure but also Human Rights was not the only grounds cited in the appeals of the Closure Notices. A Tribunal would have to consider whether there was any merit in the other grounds of appeal.

[weetbix]

When I was in the scheme I was a NON Domiciled Tax Resident and all the funds from the Partnership were not remited to the UK at all,
under Self Assessment I knew I didnt even need to declare these as I was non domiciled in the UK, however MTM forced me to put it down as I guess they didnt understand the tax situation properly, they later accepted that I didnt need to declare these to the IRD however it was too late by then, just wish I had pushed that point harder at the time.

Dont suppose you know if being non domiciled and not repatriating funds back to the UK gets around the back dated law change?.

I havent lived in the UK for nearly 10 years, thats how long this thing has been going on, its just ridiculous.

[silver_lining]

When I was in the scheme I was a NON Domiciled Tax Resident and all the funds from the Partnership were not remited to the UK at all,
under Self Assessment I knew I didnt even need to declare these as I was non domiciled in the UK, however MTM forced me to put it down as I guess they didnt understand the tax situation properly, they later accepted that I didnt need to declare these to the IRD however it was too late by then, just wish I had pushed that point harder at the time.

Dont suppose you know if being non domiciled and not repatriating funds back to the UK gets around the back dated law change?.

I havent lived in the UK for nearly 10 years, thats how long this thing has been going on, its just ridiculous.

I was going to do the same thing, but long story short could not afford not to no remit to UK. Oddly enough it was one of the snr MP folk that advised that was the best thing to do in my case and like you say perfectly legal not to disclose.

Sorry could not afford to do it to in the end !

[MrX]

Interest Liability

I was trying to work out my interest liability as I'm looking to remortgage and want to make sure I'm fully covered should the decision go against us. I know there is a post out there with how to calculate it for the different years but I can't find it. Can someone help please? Also, it would be extremely helpful for everyone if this information was on the first page and kept up-to-date by this I mean, because the interest is not compounded, a simple multiplier for each year. Thanks.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I was trying to work out my interest liability as I'm looking to remortgage and want to make sure I'm fully covered should the decision go against us. I know there is a post out there with how to calculate it for the different years but I can't find it. Can someone help please? Also, it would be extremely helpful for everyone if this information was on the first page and kept up-to-date by this I mean, because the interest is not compounded, a simple multiplier for each year. Thanks.

Done - see bottom of 1st post of thread.

I can't vouch for these figures being totally accurate but it's probably near enough.

[MrX]

Done - see bottom of 1st post of thread.

I can't vouch for these figures being totally accurate but it's probably near enough.

DR, you're a star! Thanks v. much

[smalldog]

deluded?

I maybe massively deluded but I cant help feeling that the longer the decision takes the more encouraged I am that its going to fall our way....thoughts anyone??

[slogger]

I maybe massively deluded but I cant help feeling that the longer the decision takes the more encouraged I am that its going to fall our way....thoughts anyone??

wouldnt read anything into it - just hope for the best and prepare for the worst as the saying goes!

[OnYourBikeGB]

I maybe massively deluded but I cant help feeling that the longer the decision takes the more encouraged I am that its going to fall our way....thoughts anyone??

I think all we can say is that it's requiring a lot of thought. This could be because of the PWC case, which we had initially thought of as a bit of a shot in the dark. If it's not that, and if Parker was right about our argument and that HR doesn't come into this, then it may be scope. HMRC will be handed a ticket to bypass the legal process if this succeeds. Why bother going to court at all if they tell Hector it's ok just to get retrospective law pushed through. Who needs laws at all in that case, you can make it up as you go, and if you screw up, well just make a new one and backdate it. They are custodians of the law, any decision that could potentially undermine the legal process in this way with such huge potential repercussions both legal and constitutional is bound to take a long time.

If they side with Hector, then they will want to do so without undermining the legal process. This will be very difficult. On the other hand, if they are siding with us, then going against the perceived will of Parliament means they must be watertight on the decision or find a way of fudging it. They may be looking closely at the arguments for this actually being clarification. This could let them off the hook, but is it legally arguable?

Either way, if it is our argument, and not the PWC case, then it's not as cut and dried as it was with Parker. And that's good news for us.

On the other hand, if it is the PWC case, then maybe the argument is at least contentious, and that is also good news for us.

From Hector's point of view, it's taking a long time and I can't think how that can mean they have a simple, clear-cut victory ahead like they did under Parker, and that's bad news for them. They might win this, but at least this time our voice has been listened to, and I think any ambiguity must be to our benefit, at least to get it to the Supreme Court.

That's how I've been looking at it anyway.

[TalkingCheese]

Middle ground ?

Could it be they are looking for some middle ground ?

Perhaps where the moralistic view on tax avoidance is appeased without opening the floodgates for retrospection. Say they decided it didn't infringe our human rights to apply tax retrospectively for a year then Hmrc gets some money and doesn't lose so much face and everyones right to organise tax affairs with (a relative amount of) certainty is upheld ?