BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[TheBarCapBoyz]

Knowing my luck, I'll probably get more this weekend as HMRC seem to be in the habit of making sure their harrassment hits home at weekends.

It's true. HMRC nasty stuff always seems to turn up at the weekend.

Do they do this on purpose, or are we all just paranoid?

Maybe it's the staff at the sorting office... they see the brown envelope and think "hehe let's hold this back until Saturday...."

[Doug1965]

Why the brown envelopes come at weekend

It's true. HMRC nasty stuff always seems to turn up at the weekend.

Do they do this on purpose, or are we all just paranoid?

Monday........surf the web
Tuesday.......surf the web
Wednesday...surf the web
Thursday......surf the web
Friday..........Damn! Better get my quota out - where are the brown envelopes

[smalldog]

daily politics show

go on, give Lurch a right good kicking!!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...cs/8570339.stm

[Emigre]

I've just been considering buying a painting from the USA and have worked out the tax elements of this purchase, my 'fair share of tax', if you will:

Cost of painting and shipping = £330
Import duty @ 2.5% = £8.25
Import VAT @ 17.5% on 338.25 = 59.19 (call it 60)

Total purchase = 397.44 - call is £400 for the maths

Higher rate income tax paid on the £400 released from my company = £160
VAT paid on the £560 earned by my Ltd = £98 (call it 100 for the maths)

So, for this 330 quid purchase HMRC receive 8.25+60+160+100
= £328.25

Just in case you are still thinking along the lines of paying your "fair share of tax" are you sure the Import Duty is only 2.5%? The last time I imported from the US the duty rate was 10% (ie another £25 on your calculations).

Of course, after April 5, if you were earning between 100-120k your marginal tax rate would be 60%...

[robinhood]

Kpmg

Found this regarding KPMG thoughts on the Huitson case. Has probably been posted earlier but just in case..

http://rd.kpmg.co.uk/WhatWeDo/20053.htm

[Vallah]

Hope this is OK to post here, and apologies if it's been posted before. It's a copy of a letter in the local IOM newspaper, from Montpelier:

FROM: Montpelier Tax Consultants (Isle of Man) Limited.

We refer to the judicial review article, February 9, and feel it does not properly record the true facts of the case.

1. The tax planning scheme took advantage of the UK/Isle of Man double taxation agreement and has been used by Montpelier and many accountancy firms since 2001 based on the unqualified opinion of tax counsel in London. It was therefore entirely lawful.

2. The scheme was not simply used by IT contractors but many property developers.

3. HMRC made no attempt to seriously tackle the scheme from 2001-2007 or provide any plausible reason why it did not work. In April 2007 we were advised by HMRC that four test cases were to go before the special commissioners in the UK. However, before this could happen HMRC advised UK ministers to change the tax law backwards arguing it was a clarification. The judge in the judicial review cast serious doubt on this assertion. We say the law was not clarified but changed.

4. The judgement is the subject of an application for permission to appeal and both Montpelier and our client will take it as far as necessary to get justice. We find the part of the judgement which says that retrospective taxation is permissible to ensure that UK residents pay their fair share of tax deeply worrying. The implications for many offshore jurisdictions like the Isle of Man are serious as UK residents establish trusts and other structures in the Isle of Man with at least some tax saving in mind. This judgement now leaves such planning open to attack retrospectively and creates uncertainty in the market.

5. There are several attacks being made against the UK Government concerning the legality of section 58 Finance Act 2008. One, by clients of PriceWaterHouse-Coopers, London, will be heard in March. This claims that section 58 is in breach of article 56 of the EC Treaty which concerns the freedom of movement of capital. Another party has taken the matter to Strasbourg and the House of Lords Committee on Human Rights has taken an interest.

Our client's case concerns the right of UK residents to plan to reduce their tax in a lawful manner without fear of the law being changed backwards. Our clients did this in the belief that the tax efficiency of the scheme would be tested in the tax courts based on the law in the normal way. The retrospective legislation denied our clients that opportunity.

We suggest offshore jurisdictions, including the Isle of Man, should pay close attention to developments in our legal action and the legal actions landed by others.

[smalldog]

Found this regarding KPMG thoughts on the Huitson case. Has probably been posted earlier but just in case..

http://rd.kpmg.co.uk/WhatWeDo/20053.htm

its all so damning! I dont see how lurch and the rest of the Lemon party (a game of bingo gone horribly wrong) brigade can win this!

[portseven]

go on, give Lurch a right good kicking!!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...cs/8570339.stm

he didn't come across too well, wouldn't call him a great orator.

[zippo]

Found this regarding KPMG thoughts on the Huitson case. Has probably been posted earlier but just in case..

http://rd.kpmg.co.uk/WhatWeDo/20053.htm

"Finally, because of the increased risk of such legislation, clients should expect to be told regularly that any advice runs the risk that retroactive changes in legislation will invalidate it. Taxpayers should complain to the Government and not their advisers!"

[smalldog]

"Finally, because of the increased risk of such legislation, clients should expect to be told regularly that any advice runs the risk that retroactive changes in legislation will invalidate it. Taxpayers should complain to the Government and not their advisers!"

that line is laughable, so we complain to the government do we, sure of course they would listen and change it based on our views....NOT