BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Hang on, this is more troubling than ever. Is Dave saying
that it is now policy of HMRC to shut schemes down retrospectively?

Who passed that piece of legislation? Even Lurch claims it
is to be used sparingly. Talk about stepping beyond your
boundaries.

Indeed. Given that the JR and HMRC / HMT themselves referred to the point that we should have expected retrospective legislation holds no water in light of what Hartnett claims. He further implies that the "practice" that did exist is no longer the current practice or to put it simply, retrospection should be the normal practice. Well, if so, then what the CIOT stated about the concerns of retrospection becoming the norm are well founded.

I hope that Counsel use this evidence from Hartnett to rebut the rather contradictory claim of what we were supposed to expect.

[Squicker]

Indeed. Given that the JR and HMRC / HMT themselves referred to the point that we should have expected retrospective legislation holds no water in light of what Hartnett claims. He further implies that the "practice" that did exist is no longer the current practice or to put it simply, retrospection should be the normal practice. Well, if so, then what the CIOT stated about the concerns of retrospection becoming the norm are well founded.

I hope that Counsel use this evidence from Hartnett to rebut the rather contradictory claim of what we were supposed to expect.

I am sure that HMRC retrospectively 'clarified' that they didn't really mean that at the time and that, retrospection has always been the norm, retrospectively speaking.

:-/

[SantaClaus]

Its amazing. The more Hartnett speaks, the bigger a hole he digs himself.

And right now, he is standing in a 50 foot crater.

I am sure that HMRC retrospectively 'clarified' that they didn't really mean that at the time and that, retrospection has always been the norm, retrospectively speaking.
:-/

This is beginning to sound like an episode of Fawlty Towers
You know the one, where Basil tries to justify himself with "you thought I said...in actual fact what I really meant to say was..."

[robinhood]

Smallwood Appeal

This will be an interesting ruling - HMRC appeal was heard on march 10 but still awaiting judgment on this

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/l...se_id=20091047

[Lazylobster]

This will be an interesting ruling - HMRC appeal was heard on march 10 but still awaiting judgment on this

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/l...se_id=20091047

Whats the basis of the appeal ?

Ta
LL

[DonkeyRhubarb]

This will be an interesting ruling - HMRC appeal was heard on march 10 but still awaiting judgment on this

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/l...se_id=20091047

Also, just to remind everyone, you can use the above method to check the status of our's and PwC's case (see 1st post of thread).

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...rt-appeal.html

Currently, PwC's is "Awaiting Court of Appeal Decision in another case" ie. our case.

Our's is "Awaiting correction of defects in the bundles".

[robinhood]

Whats the basis of the appeal ?

Ta
LL

Similar type of arrangement to ours although in this case mauritius. In smallwoods case it was use of DTA for CGT whereas ours is income.
He won the first case and HMRC appealed

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Similar type of arrangement to ours although in this case mauritius. In smallwoods case it was use of DTA for CGT whereas ours is income.
He won the first case and HMRC appealed

Have a read of this:
http://www.tax.org.uk/attach.pl/8501...20Treaties.pdf

"Both cases have in common that they relate to schemes devised to avoid tax.

...

Does the fact that the treaty provisions are under examination in the context of a plan to reduce taxation change the analysis? The answer is no. In neither case was the question of avoidance material to the construction and application of the treaty.

Shame our case wasn't decided on the facts in the same way instead of "socialist policy" and nebulous concepts such as "fair share".

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Ever thought?

Why in the military, folks are taught about how to "evade and escape" the enemy?

Well, it's rather simple. I read Bravo 2-zero a while back and since they were evading capture it seemed totally reasonable for them not to go asking men in green suites and funny berets if they could just have a cuppa before they headed off to Syria.

Instead they decided to evade Mr. Musthaffa Beard and did all they could to drop below the radar. And damn right too. You've just upset a bunch of goat herders armed with AK-47's and a slightly off balance Dictator. You know they won't ask you round for tea at granny's house any time soon.

As it transpired, they were found. I rather like the phrase "Immediate Action" in this, since I think it may have been used since and not in the military.

So imagine how the book would have read if Bravo 2-zero had at the first opportunity, stood up and said to Mr Beard "hello mate, we're the SAS and we know you have a bit of an 'angst' against us, but if you don't mind, we're trying to avoid you so we're heading off now". And for 8 years they had gone roaming around Iraq and Mr Beard & Co had just fired some shots in the air and did zip else just to show how macho they were.

The book would be rather boring I think. However, the ending would be a suprise. One Sunday, Bravo 2-zero are having lunch opposite the Dictators gaff when they all get killed by a hail of bullets from the blokes in green. The End. It would be something of a suprise I'm sure. And probably hurt a lot too. But a rather unexpected end to a rather predictable book.

Much better that they evaded Beardy & Co until Immediate Action was called.

Now, having summarised Bravo-2-zero in a rather indirect way, let me come back to my point.

I think there are some in HMRC who may have read Bravo-2-zero and didn't like it one bit. They would have much preferred us to evade them so they could get into a proper fight. But since we stood up and said "hello mate, we're Montpelier and we know you have a bit of an 'angst' against us, but if you don't mind, we're heading off now". Apart from goat herding they had about as much idea of what to do about this as celibacy advice being offered in a brothel.

So they finally decided to use Immediate Action! as the catch phrase in the form of BN66. Oh dear. They seemed to have forgotton that they are playing the part of Mr Beard in this and you just cannot re-write the script. And they certainly cannot get around - or avoid - the fact that in our book we didn't evade anything. If we had, the story might have been as riveting as Bravo-2-zero rather than the form that BN66 took which as I noted earlier is rather more boring and predictable. Or at least it was.

So the point here is this. I hope the Army don't start teaching tactics on "avoid and escape" simply because you could wander around enemy territory in a "Cum on Engaland" tee-shirt for years without ever once being shot at only to find a BN66 under you deckchair 8 years later. And that would hurt quite a bit.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Global Warming is so '90's darling

Yesterday, my wife commented that I had no idea about "what being in vogue" meant. I tend to disagree. For example, I know what being in a Range Rover Vogue would be like and that it would be rather good. However, I think that those of a sandle wearing disposition might not feel the same. This got me thinking.

Some years ago, just before the Y2K meltdown I recall some wierd beards talking about "global warming". I liked this. To think that the part of the UK where I live could be like the Med in 20 years whilst Blackpool became "Lancashire Bay" seemed a rather nice idea.

However, times have changed. Somewhere since the Y2K that never was and now, we have "Climate Change". This I am told, will mean that Polar Bears will need swimming goggles, 4x4 will be the largest car you will be allowed to buy (in feet) and a Carbon Footprint will no longer be limited to investigations into spontaneous human combustion.

We are told that a great many scientists have discovered that unless we "do something now", the planet will become like Clackton-upon-Sea without fish and chip vans within 20 years.

So far, I am not too concerned or even aware of any downsides. But now I find that in fact we're all doomed unless we all become Vegans. I read today that an organisation called EarthSave suggests that what comes out of a cows bottom is behind 'Climate Change'. I'm not kidding:

http://www.earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm

So you can forget your American fridge or your Chelsea tractor, anything with more than a single stomach will destroy the planet. DR, I'm not sure, but I think you may need pet insurance for your donkey or a rather large bunsen burner to avoid being a target.

So there we have it. Global Warming is actually Climate Change and unless you are a Veganist you are helping to make Polar Bears swim more than they intended to. But what should be done? Well, as you will all know, the answer in short is to levy "Green Taxes" to solve the problem.

I have always wondered what a "Green Tax" was since all my taxes arrive in brown non-re-bycling envelopes. But at least they do tell me about what to do if I am hearing impaired but not in braille so I'm rather stuffed if I'm blind.

So this has got me thinking. What can we do to save the planet? Well according to the link above, we can kill all animals, DR, his donkey and anything else that breaks wind. We can live on carrots but I think doing so might be mass murder against a living creature or we can TAX!

I'm not sure what a carbon offset is, but apparently it has something to do with paying 30 quid in tax to plant a sapling every time I get on a plane. I'm a little unsure about the 'Return On Investment' of this idea since my longest flight is about 9 hours and I think a sapling takes rather longer than that to become a 'tree'. However, I'll accept the wierd beards take on this for now.

What I cannot fathom is that when there is a "gap" between what a government wants and what it gets, it can start referring to what in IT has always been drawn as a "cloud".

I drive a 4x4. I drive around 300 miles a year in it and I get charged a rate of tax that given the miles I drive would be like driving a Prius 2 million miles a year. But I am charged this as a Green Tax. I'm confused. I can own a gas guzzler that is more environment friendly to build and destroy than a Prius and drive it hardly at all and yet I am Greened to the max as a result.

So I have come to this conclusion. Fair Share is a concept. It's rather like a Prius or any other "green car". There is an idealogy behind it rather than a logic. Climate Change is real. But if you do anything that is morally wrong (even if economically and environmentally viable), then you should be punished financially.

You can earn more than others, reduce your tax more than others or even pay someone to help you become sufficient from the State. But, unless you become a Vegan who wants livestock dead, drives a Prius, plants trees and wears sandles (provided by the State of course in non-leather) you are not paying your 'fair share'. Climate Change is so '00's darling. 'Fair Share' is the new Vogue but unless you know and agree to what the policy makers say 'vogue' means, you're not paying your "fair share".

Global Warming and Climate Change are as different in definition as tax law and 'fair share' unless there's money to be made from it by those who change the definition and like Global Warming, retrospectivley of course.