BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I have not even been to the "cleggy site".

If i have something to say i will not hide behind some "pseudo".

I follow BN66 thread with interest but have nothing more to say on the subject other than to say stop "trashing" me with every negative comment.

Fair enough and FWIW I didn't think it was you because the person clearly wasn't that knowledgeable on finer points of the case.

While you are here perhaps you can settle an argument. Do you know if it was HMRC who came up with the idea of retrospection or their QC?

[SantaClaus]

I have not even been to the "cleggy site".

If i have something to say i will not hide behind some "pseudo".

I follow BN66 thread with interest but have nothing more to say on the subject other than to say stop "trashing" me with every negative comment.

Interesting... if what you say is true and its not you then HMRC have lowered themselves to very childish name calling.

[normalbloke]

What do you honestly expect?

I have not even been to the "cleggy site".

If i have something to say i will not hide behind some "pseudo".

I follow BN66 thread with interest but have nothing more to say on the subject other than to say stop "trashing" me with every negative comment.

What do you expect? You sell people up the Swanee at the start.... then charge 'em for shopping them to HMRC, followed by a circus appearance at the JR where you seem to be in cahoots with HMRC's legal team.

Can't blame people for jumping to conclusions....

[Emigre]

I have not even been to the "cleggy site".

If i have something to say i will not hide behind some "pseudo".

I follow BN66 thread with interest but have nothing more to say on the subject other than to say stop "trashing" me with every negative comment.

Thank you Alan for clarifying.

Let's hope that everyone has left past differences in the past. There is still a long way to go for everyone here and unity is better than division.

All the best

[Ninja]

CIoT greatly concerned by retrospective tax action

An article by Kevin Reed from AccountacyAge

Concerns have been raised over the Treasury's use of retrospective action on tax, a situation which puts the principle of certainty in the tax system into doubt.

The CIoT has warned that amendments to tax rules relating to manufactured dividends, which have been retrospectively applied back to 2007, damages the "key principle of certainty in the UK tax system".

"We can understand that at times the government wants to take action to ‘confirm the general understanding of the tax system’ in the light of questions raised. However, this needs to be used with great caution: it must not dislodge the principle that the taxpayer is taxed on the wording of the legislation in place at the time of their actions," John Whiting, tax policy director at the CIOT.

“We need a clear statement as to when retrospection will be used and its boundaries – and Parliament needs to consider such boundaries with care.”

Kevin Reed, AccountancyAge, 12 Feb 2010
CIoT greatly concerned by retrospective tax action - Accountancy Age

[Ninja]

Oratore said: "The way tax law is made in the UK is deeply flawed"

I think that this hits the nail on the head regarding our own experiences with the Treasury Select Committee – under last government - railroading this ill conceived legislation onto the statute books. For me, Oratore’s opening sentence says it all.

The following are excerpts taken from a paper written by Lesley Bolton in July 2010, called Making Tax Law: Pushing in the SAME DIRECTION

Oratore said: “The way tax law is made in the UK is deeply flawed. There is not enough expert scrutiny and there is insufficient Parliamentary time to consider properly the effect that changes will have in practice.” And as a result, the UK has the longest primary tax code, and one of the most complicated, in the world.

The CIOT proposes that a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), made up of a combination of MPs and peers, be established to improve the way tax law is made. This would be on the model of the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, which scrutinises tax legislation in the US, adapted for the UK’s parliamentary system.

Oratore said: “The Treasury doesn’t get all the time it needs to go through the detailed elements of tax policy, which is why you need a fully-resourced executive such as exists in the US.”

A Joint Parliamentary Select Committee on Taxation, with an Office of Tax Simplification reporting to it, was a central recommendation of a paper, Making Taxes Simpler, published in July 2008 by a Conservative working party under Lord Howe, and reflected in this year’s Tory party manifesto.

Vincent Oratore is the new President of Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT).

This is also a very good article about legitimate expectation regarding tax disputes.
http://www.tax.org.uk/attach.pl/9400...%20Gillham.pdf

[DonkeyRhubarb]

it must not dislodge the principle that the taxpayer is taxed on the wording of the legislation in place at the time of their actions,

Apparently, that "principle" no longer applies.

[Alan Jones]

Tax Counsel

Fair enough and FWIW I didn't think it was you because the person clearly wasn't that knowledgeable on finer points of the case.

While you are here perhaps you can settle an argument. Do you know if it was HMRC who came up with the idea of retrospection or their QC?

Tax Counsel

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Tax Counsel

Thanks. That's what I suspected.

Bloody leeches. I bet they'll have made a packet out of this by the time it's over.

[In the First Degree]

New but interested

Hello,

Not posted here before and not directly involved in this matter. However, as part of a degree course, I am doing background work on the UK Tax System.

This matter is rather pivotal due to the retrospective nature of the legislation passed in Finance Act 2008.

I have been reading the posts regarding this on the new Government site "Your Freedom" and can see that there is clearly a case to be addressed.

My research for a White Paper is to evaluate issues such as the Tax Gap, anti-avoidance legislation, fairness in the tax system and the impact of any perceived uncertainty in the UK tax system.

This case is critically important due to the issues brought up here and elsewhere.

I have read comments on both sides of the matter and whilst I don't stand in judgement, in order to get a full perspective on the matter I need to ensure that I take a full view of facts to support the work I'm doing.

I read posts from 2 individuals who appear to disagree with the arguments posted here. One goes by the title Alan Jones and the other on the My Freedom website goes under the name TruthBehindTheLies.

I don't know how to engage in a private debate and exchange of thoughts on this matter with these individuals, but if they are watching this site, I would ask them to private email me here with their thoughts and reasons as to why they hold a view which seems to contradict the views of so many others here.

Due to the nature of the theory research I am doing, I need a rounded and factual view of this matter to use as a case example of UK tax. If these individuals are reading this comment, then feel free to email me your positions and reasoning so that I can assess how to reference it within my research.

I appreciate that the matter in question is very sensitive to many people. My intentions are to extract as much intrinsic information as I can on this matter of retrospective tax to support a technical paper on the wider matter. So, in addition to that which I have researched on this from the side against this legislation, I would like to balance it with factual details from those who disagree. So if the 2 individuals listed above would like to air their considerations on the matter for a more holistic perspective, please PM (is that the phrase?) me on this.

Regards

<Mod> If you ask admin, they will give you PM access. </Mod>