BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[helen7]

TIMMS on LBC 97.3 now...anybody fancy calling in?

[PlaneSailing]

TIMMS on LBC 97.3 now...anybody fancy calling in?

Yes. if I get home soon. Is he still on?

[PlaneSailing]

Yes. if I get home soon. Is he still on?

Missed him. Sent an email to the producer though.

Gutted

[portseven]

you could always haggle him on his twitter feed

[johnnyguitar]

I have been thinking about what travellingknob was saying earlier and it brought it home to me how crucial this point is.

If BN66 is a change in the law then how can it be right or fair for it to be retrospective when other schemes are still being closed prospectively?

It's only the "clarification" smokescreen which allows HMRC/Government to single out the DTA scheme for special treatment, whilst continuing to deal with other schemes in the same way as they always have. Otherwise, BN66 would be seen as an arbitrary and unjustified attack on one group of taxpayers.

All the things Justice Parker said about the DTA scheme (artificiality, no commercial purpose, 3% tax) can equally be levelled at just about every other tax planning arrangement past or present.

So the question is:

Was it a clarification or a change?

I thought the judge was fairly clear on day 1 that he did not believe the original intention of Padmore was intended to be more generalistic - he was saying that the wording in this ruling was very specific and if it was meant to have a wider scope, the language would have been different.
So by that, I believe that he thinks this is a CHANGE.

It seems to me that here is an alternate line of attack. HMRC sold this to parliament as a clarification and therefore, by its nature, had a retrospective effect. It effectvely slipped under the net.
We should challange the fact that padmore never applied to us and this if a clear, retrospective change. In which case, the words of My Parker & HMRC saying that we should have been paying on account don't work because it was a clear law at the time, which did not apply to us.
This surely would have some effecton any interest charges too?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I thought the judge was fairly clear on day 1 that he did not believe the original intention of Padmore was intended to be more generalistic - he was saying that the wording in this ruling was very specific and if it was meant to have a wider scope, the language would have been different.
So by that, I believe that he thinks this is a CHANGE.

It seems to me that here is an alternate line of attack. HMRC sold this to parliament as a clarification and therefore, by its nature, had a retrospective effect. It effectvely slipped under the net.
We should challange the fact that padmore never applied to us and this if a clear, retrospective change. In which case, the words of My Parker & HMRC saying that we should have been paying on account don't work because it was a clear law at the time, which did not apply to us.
This surely would have some effecton any interest charges too?

There is one further fly in the ointment, which is that Padmore itself was retrospective.

However, as with the "clarification" ruse, this was another sleight of hand by HMRC since Padmore didn't retrospectively tax anyone. In other words, Padmore did not set any precedent for imposing retrospective taxes.

Somewhat begrudgingly, I have to take my hat off to HMRC because they certainly did a good job of hoodwinking Parliament.

Let's hope their deception is outed in the Court of Appeal.

[helen7]

So...As announced in budget yesterday they are shutting down the EBT and Loan tax avoidance schemes; but not with retrospective effect.

Whatthe F****K ?????? What about them paying a 'fair share' and not acting in the 'spirit of the law'.

Surely this should be used in court to back up our defense. We are being treated differently to every other tax payer and being made an example of.

[Overwhelmed]

So...As announced in budget yesterday they are shutting down the EBT and Loan tax avoidance schemes; but not with retrospective effect.

Whatthe F****K ?????? What about them paying a 'fair share' and not acting in the 'spirit of the law'.

Surely this should be used in court to back up our defense. We are being treated differently to every other tax payer and being made an example of.

Careful Helen, quite a few of us are EBTers now.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So...As announced in budget yesterday they are shutting down the EBT and Loan tax avoidance schemes; but not with retrospective effect.

Whatthe F****K ?????? What about them paying a 'fair share' and not acting in the 'spirit of the law'.

Surely this should be used in court to back up our defense. We are being treated differently to every other tax payer and being made an example of.

Yes, it kind of makes a mockery of the word "fairness" doesn't it.

I'm sure the same terms that Justice Parker used to describe our scheme (aggressive, artificial, no commercial purpose, 3% tax) could equally be applied to these EBT loan schemes.

[FredBasset]

Well being cynical they could spend the next year opening enquiries before introducing legislation in April 2011 that 'clarifies' these things.

Obviously during the next twelve months the ongoing status of BN66 in the courts might help them decide how to do this. I did not see any statement yesterday saying that the new legislation due in 2011 will not be applied retrospectively.

They announced when new legislation will be applied.

Fred