BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Don't panic

So, I almost jumped out of this when our ruling came down. After speaking to them, hearing their reassurances, and the fact that the difference between that and a LTD company would help me reduce this potential bill quicker, I decide to stay with it.
Have I made the wrong decision twice ? Is it popular opinion here that these should be avoided ?

IMHO, no you didn't make the wrong decision.

HMRC have lost 2 cases (Sempra & Dextra), which they haven't appealed.

Sempra were represented by Montpelier.

The most likely outcome is that the schemes will be closed going forward by legislation next year.

[robinhood]

Surely that is an argument our legal team can use. How can there be one rule for them and one for us? Doesnt there have to be one rule for all, either the government make everyone retrospective in supposed avoidance cases, or give everyone one year to get their house in order and then impose prospective legislation.

Montp legal team should have some interesting angles to work on for the Appeal. Darling could have done us a favour I think

[Buzby]

Ebt

I am in a EBT and as I see it for the first time since IR35 I know I am confirmed in my tax position. The schemes will be closed going forward which must mean HMRC accept tax returns for previous year?

I was also about to move to a LTD company, but think I will stay in the EBT and help me save.

[helen7]

Since changes to the finance bill need to be approved; will it be worthwhile us wrtiting to those on the committe to object to the retrospective changes in this years budget.

If the committee deem that retrospective changes are unacceptable; could this help our cause??

[helen7]

Oh, and another question.

In what seems to be the ever increasingly unlikely event of the Conservatives winning the election; will this help our cause in anyway? or whould they still continue to pursue us with their time machine?

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

EBT's

I think caution is needed. Whilst the Budget does refer to EBT's from April 2011 there are other comments referring to Budget Day 2010.

What is needed is a clear and unambiguous statement from HMT stating that EBT's are being addressed prospectively from April 2011 if that is what they mean. No doubts, no uncertainty, no exceptions.

Currently, I see a juxtoposition here. Why would any EBT be investigated if the rules are to change across the board from April 2011? I think that the reference 1 year from now is selective.

But as ever, there remains further uncertainty in the avoidance space. But don't worry. The new "principles-based legislation" will take care of any uncertainy or fairness issue...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Since changes to the finance bill need to be approved; will it be worthwhile us wrtiting to those on the committe to object to the retrospective changes in this years budget.

If the committee deem that retrospective changes are unacceptable; could this help our cause??

Since Labour has a majority on the Finance Bill Committee, it won't make any difference.

However, I am checking with the JCHR to see if the retrospective "repo" legislation has been referred to them.

This has a lot of similarities with our case in that it is a retrospective "clarification" of existing anti-avoidance legislation, although it doesn't extend back as many years.

If this gets passed then it may also end up in the Courts.

[helen7]

Since Labour has a majority on the Finance Bill Committee, it won't make any difference.

However, I am checking with the JCHR to see if the retrospective "repo" legislation has been referred to them.

.

Good work :-) Lets hope JCHR have a say this time.

I know labour will probably for this through with the majority, but I am sure it would hurt to provoke a debate on this. If we have the list of names of who will be their we can get pen to paper to make them aware of the impact of retrospective legislation is having.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Oh, and another question.

In what seems to be the ever increasingly unlikely event of the Conservatives winning the election; will this help our cause in anyway? or whould they still continue to pursue us with their time machine?

Let's put it this way, it couldn't hurt our cause. The Conservatives opposed Section 58, and whilst they might not be inclined to repeal it, they are more likely to bow to any decision of the courts.

Ultimately, whoever gets in, I believe we have to win in the courts.

I wish there was another way but I don't think there is.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

HMRC goes on £1bn retro warpath

This was announced within 3 weeks of Parker's judgment.

http://www.accountancyage.com/accoun...-retro-warpath

It comes after a recent High Court ruling that retrospective legislation is not a breach of human rights.

http://www.trafalgaraccounting.co.uk...orporation_tax

A recent report has it that the HMRC will use the same strategy wherever it sees fit and possibly open up similar tax backdating in the future.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/aadd25ec-1...44feab49a.html

Revenue & Customs said it had not accepted the challenge to its reading of the law, but it wanted "to put beyond doubt" its position that payments received in the course of a sale and repurchase transaction should be taken into account for tax.