BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[In the First Degree]

Silly me

Forgot to say in my first post here, that I see and understand the arguments against Finance Act 2008 in terms of retrospection, but I cannot distill the reasoning for the counter case from those who support the Act. Hence why I need some enlightenment.

In order to develop a Paper on matters of the UK Tax System, I need compelling facts to address. So positions in support of the Act and references for those positions are important.

I hope my presence here does not cause conflict on either side of the dividing lines as I am here merely to gather facts. And on the face of what has been researched thus far, there is a compelling case against the Act. For reference, I will mention the Rees rules which seem to have been laid aside in this case as in many others. This issue forms part of the Paper.

[In the First Degree]

Dear Admin

May I have PM access please?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

You should be worrying about the Graduate tax mate not this tulip.

[travellingknob]

Forgot to say in my first post here, that I see and understand the arguments against Finance Act 2008 in terms of retrospection, but I cannot distill the reasoning for the counter case from those who support the Act. Hence why I need some enlightenment.

In order to develop a Paper on matters of the UK Tax System, I need compelling facts to address. So positions in support of the Act and references for those positions are important.

I hope my presence here does not cause conflict on either side of the dividing lines as I am here merely to gather facts. And on the face of what has been researched thus far, there is a compelling case against the Act. For reference, I will mention the Rees rules which seem to have been laid aside in this case as in many others. This issue forms part of the Paper.

When your paper is finished would you be prepared to publish it for us to read ? It would be interesting to see what conclusions you draw etc especially since you have no inherent interest in the outcome.
I also wonder if you would include the issues surrounding HMRC accruing interest since ~2001 even though the retrospective law wasn't brought in until 2008. Being that interest cant accrue on something that didn't become due until at least 30 days after the law was introduced if not Jan 31st of the year following its introduction its clearly another major bone of contention.
Beware that Alan Jones' opinions are tainted by a civil case he is fighting. His reasons for holding a different position than everyone else on this board are very much driven by that rather than anything he supports in the legislation.

[administrator]

May I have PM access please?

<admin note>Account upgraded</admin note>

[In the First Degree]

Graduate Tax

You should be worrying about the Graduate tax mate not this tulip.

Mr DonkeyRhubarb,

I take your point and whilst this is a tax matter of a different kind, your point is well noted. It covers the wider picture of the Tax System in the UK and this is a point in flux as the new Government attempts to address the Fiscal Defict. Sorry for the ignorance, but are you caught up directly in s.58?

I appreciate the sentiment around this matter, so would like your opinions as you deem fit. The reading I have conducted on this site suggests you are well versed in this case and that you have a strong background on the history behind it. Please feel free to PM (?) me if you would like to put the facts forward against s.58 as I hope others who see things differently might do so I can build a full picture of the matter.

Kind Regards.

[SantaClaus]

Good luck with your white paper, In The First Degree. However, if you are seeking "enlightenment", I'm not sure Alan Jones or TruthBehindTheLies are the type of people who can provide it.

[In the First Degree]

Tax &amp; Interest

When your paper is finished would you be prepared to publish it for us to read ? It would be interesting to see what conclusions you draw etc especially since you have no inherent interest in the outcome.
I also wonder if you would include the issues surrounding HMRC accruing interest since ~2001 even though the retrospective law wasn't brought in until 2008. Being that interest cant accrue on something that didn't become due until at least 30 days after the law was introduced if not Jan 31st of the year following its introduction its clearly another major bone of contention.
Beware that Alan Jones' opinions are tainted by a civil case he is fighting. His reasons for holding a different position than everyone else on this board are very much driven by that rather than anything he supports in the legislation.

Sir,

I take your point and understand what you are saying. The HMRC guidelines on interest are published and whilst clear on many fronts, does give rise to concern with respect to retrospection. Under the Rees rules, when a clear signal is given (viz a viz retrospection), the clock ought to start counting from that point. However, there is a question as to when any (or if) clear signal was given by the authorities on this matter prior to s.58 since my research tells me that HMRC never referred to the Finance Act 1987 (2) in their position on this before what was initially BN66 became advertised in January 2008. Hansard records do not refer to the 1987 (2) legislation prior to the debating stages of what then became s.58.

However, and in fairness to unbiased research, there are those who lay claim to a different perspective on this. That is why I am looking for a case on both sides of the border so that as has been stated elsewhere - fairness, can be applied to the position. In absence of any counter argument, it would seem that this matter first and foremost should have gone before the Commissioners at the earliest opportunity. However, that remains to be a substantive case whilst other opinions and views are sought.

Whilst I will remain impartial for the purpose of my work, the absence of any counter claims to s.58 being offered, I can only speculate on what these counters may be. I would rather have formative views to any counter rather than draw my own conclusions.

I did read one or two comments from Mr Jones and I am not sure what to draw from them. He is clearly an individual who has a significant understanding of this matter yet with juxtopositions. Please understand that I cannot take his disposition beyond the matter in hand into account since the Due Diligence of my work must address the direct facts first and foremost. If there are issues that Mr Jones or anyone else has beyond that, I must leave them aside unless they show an abstraction of the facts pertaining to this case.

Forgive me for trying to "walk the line" on this sensitive case. I appreciate and note the views and thoughts of yourself and DonkeyRhubarb. But I must allow the relevant views to be brought into context from both sides. Needless to say, I currently have only the views and evidence of those against s.58 in any normal form. So, I hope to gain the views of the counter claim to avoid the need to apply asymmetric error calculations and Confidence Interval & Confidence Level analysis that might skew the data. This will ensure that a factually accurate analysis of this matter can be embodied in the broader context of the work I have undertaken and will be critical if needed as reference in the wider body of the text.

Kind Regards,

(Sorry, I don't know what acronym to use here!)

[helen7]

IN THE FIRST DEGREE

Basically, we paid a company to manage our tax affairs and were told in writing that it was perfectly legal and approved by a barrister.

For 7 years I submitted our tax returns to HMRC with all the money fully declared. At no point did they challenge any of my tax returns. They were full aware of the whole workings of the arrangement since at least 2002.

In 2008 they concluded that what we were doing was perfectly legal and; the only way to make up for 8 years of not taking any action to shut the loophole; they decided to change it retrospectively (oh, and add 7 years worth of interest).

As a result; thousands of families will loose there homes; some will be bankrupt, many marriages will breakdown, many people will suffer severe depression and some people will leave the country.

And all this because HMRC did not act to close the loop hole when they were first notified of it.

Hope this helps.

[In the First Degree]

Thank You

IN THE FIRST DEGREE

Basically, we paid a company to manage our tax affairs and were told in writing that it was perfectly legal and approved by a barrister.

For 7 years I submitted our tax returns to HMRC with all the money fully declared. At no point did they challenge any of my tax returns. They were full aware of the whole workings of the arrangement since at least 2002.

In 2008 they concluded that what we were doing was perfectly legal and; the only way to make up for 8 years of not taking any action to shut the loophole; they decided to change it retrospectively (oh, and add 7 years worth of interest).

As a result; thousands of families will loose there homes; some will be bankrupt, many marriages will breakdown, many people will suffer severe depression and some people will leave the country.

And all this because HMRC did not act to close the loop hole when they were first notified of it.

Hope this helps.

Dear helen7,

I have researched this aspect and found that a survey of those affected by s.58 (the retrospective clauses) was presented to the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) and that they had misgivings about the retrospection. Having read their commentary and the subsequent response by S. Timms (MP) who was the then Secretary to the Treasury, there are some evidence analysis gaps that need filling. Thankyou for your input. This is commentary in addition to that already received from persons opposed to s.58.

I, of course, need to have supporting commentary for the juxtaposed views in order to produce a balanced summary.

I do note that there was a previous settlement of a similar scheme with HMRC some time before s.58 came into being. If anyone can share via PM the background and history to this, it will help to build a much more complete picture of the events. Please keep any emails relevant to the facts with evidence or quoted commentary for reference in my work. I will be required to substantiate any references quoted in my write ups and evaluations.

BTW, I can find no commentary of HMRC stating that the 1987 (2) legislation applied to this case before the initial announcement of what was BN66. Did I miss something here? I presume HMRC did refer to this Act at some point prior to retrospection. If so, this will be key in developing my work on how retrospective tax legislation moves from the drawing board into Statute.