BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[TheBarCapBoyz]

Argument from link to tax journal seems to suggest that retrospection can be applied to artificial arrangements ... What's artificial ffs - anything done within the law, out in the open and without duplicity is surely legitimate and not artificial..

Artificial = "not what parliament intended"

Who decides what parliament intended? Parliament/HMRC

Oh dear.

[TheBarCapBoyz]

And in here lies the conundrum. To be clear, if something you do today is legal in written law but disliked by the authorities becase it's "artificial", "aggressive" and the like then becomes illegal tomorrow such that is was illegal before, then the possibilities are endless. The record is well and truly broken on this point but it's an important one - If you're 100% transparent in what you do and it's legal and the authorities take 7 years to act, why penalise those who were transparent rather than stuffing the mob who did nowt for those years? Frankly what should it matter whether something is artificial or not? If it's legal and disclosed then if Hector feels that strongly about it he should use the tools available and stop it there and then. Otherwise we have a situation like ours where they don't need to do a thing for 6 or 7 years then simply apply retrospective legislation and get the bag of goodies.

It's a sorry state of affairs but in our case, retrospection has been used for one simple reason only - to get Hector off the hook for not having a clue what to do for 7 years and were being payed for that. So don't worry about their claims of "moving swiftly" to close loopholes. It's better to let the deficit mount for a few years then use the loss to the Exchequer line to justify retrospection. If HMRC was a private company, there'd be nobody working there as they'd all be fired for gross incompetence. But don't worry, we're all in it together according to the Government. Yeah right.

I agree with all of this, but in answer to your question, "Frankly what should it matter whether something is artificial or not?", I am afraid that is the excuse they seem to be using and the courts seem to be swallowing that line. Certainly Parker did.

That is why this case is so important, the judges at the CoA are deciding if perceived "artificiality" is sufficient to justify retrospection, *from a proportionality perspective*.

Who knows what these guys will decide?

[Squicker]

legal and disclosed then if Hector feels that strongly about it he should use the tools available and stop it there and then. Otherwise we have a situation like ours where they don't need to do a thing for 6 or 7 years then simply apply retrospective legislation and get the bag of goodies..

Well the problem is that, if they get away with this, there's an incentive for waiting and 'stringing people along', because by that method more interest and penalties acrue.

If there was a verdict that said, "you must pay the retrospective tax but the interest is annulled because that was outside your control", I'd not wince half as much. As it is likely to stand, hector will be rewarded for having done nothing. Giving an org an incentive to be lazy, inept, clot-headed thickies is definitely a very bad situation for all future tax-payers.

Or are they past tax-payers, difficult to know with the HMRC time machine TARDIS; Tax and Retrospective Demonstrations in Stupidity

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Artificial = "not what parliament intended"

Who decides what parliament intended? Parliament/HMRC

Oh dear.

Worryingly, it took HMRC 7 years to figure out what Parliament intended. WW2 took less time that that to figure out and only a couple of years longer for man to go from flying to walking on the moon. If I remember a certain piece of evidence from HMRC at the HC, it was late 2007 that "HMRC looked at the 1987 legislation again". Had they forgotton what Parliament intended for the previous 6 years? Take that line and you could use that as an "Oh I forgot, that was what Parliament intended" for anything you cocked up. I'd like to go back even further then and refer to Adam Smith and what he intended. Or the Rees Rules and what Rees intended.

I intended to be a millionaire one day but I'm not going to sue those who I think stopped me from becoming one. Anyways, I hope we had a good day in Court today.

If HMRC are reading, don't take it personally, it's the process that's at fault even if that was not what is intended.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Update on Final Day

My contact said that Singh's performance today was very shaky.

Once again, Singh resorted to reading out posts off this forum.

LJ Mummery commented that they couldn't know who these people are or if they even exist. After conferring with HMRC, Singh said they know who we all are. Fortunately, the Judge was having none of this and dismissed it.

Apparently, Elvin gave an excellent closing statement, as did the QC representing PwC.

Overall, it was a very good day and the hearing ended on a high note for us.

[RichardCranium]

Overall, it was a very good day and the hearing ended on a high note for us.

Good luck, and I hope you don't need it.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

My contact said that Singh's performance today was very shaky.

Once again, Singh resorted to reading out posts off this forum.

LJ Mummery commented that they couldn't know who these people are or if they even exist. After conferring with HMRC, Singh said they know who we all are. Fortunately, the Judge was having none of this and dismissed it.

Apparently, Elvin gave an excellent closing statement, as did the QC representing PwC.

Overall, it was a very good day and the hearing ended on a high note for us.

Thanks for the update DR. We know not to read too much into the way Judges come across. Remember Parker seemed very considerate but gave nothing to us. But, the fact the HMRC know who we all are is rather flattering since it implies they are concerned about what we say and know. So on that score, if you're reading, can you have a look at your document posted by DR earlier under FoI and reflect on the "Not for Circulation" notes? I can imagine why they're not for circulation given what you said about the purpose of the Padmore retrospection. You might even want to consider that BN66 was worded using the claim that it is retrospective as was the Padmore legislation minus the rather important fact that Padmore was worded specifically to prevent what BN66 achieves.

And by the way, as for legitimate expectations, I don't consider your 1987 document to do much other than support the notion that such expectations would include a U-turn on retrospection. I think you should consider this whilst you contemplate the CoA this week. Who knows how the CoA will rule, but win or lose, I cannot imagine that you sleep well at night if you like us know what the truth is and how this has traction from your very own document (not to mention TN63).

Good job to everyone on this Forum so far. Win or lose, I'm glad we came to this place as one. So we will wait and see where the next turn in the road takes us.

[TheBarCapBoyz]

My contact said that Singh's performance today was very shaky.

Once again, Singh resorted to reading out posts off this forum.

LJ Mummery commented that they couldn't know who these people are or if they even exist. After conferring with HMRC, Singh said they know who we all are. Fortunately, the Judge was having none of this and dismissed it.

Apparently, Elvin gave an excellent closing statement, as did the QC representing PwC.

Overall, it was a very good day and the hearing ended on a high note for us.

Slightly sinister. "We know where you live mate. You'd better shut the f'uck up or we'll send the boys round..."


In any case, if they know who I am, then I welcome them to come round my house tonight and lick my arse...

[TykeMerc]

Good luck, and I hope you don't need it.

What he said +1

They can't claim that "they know who people are" about all of the posters on this and previous BN66 threads as not all of the posters ever did any business with Montpelier or used this tax planning strategy, I didn't. It was a stupid thing for a QC to claim as it's patently untrue.

Short of making the CUK admins cough up info from their userbase and tracking email addresses for hundreds of ID's; which would be a challenge; they couldn't even tie the known scheme users to 99% of the ID's.

I hope the good feelings turn into a good result for the sake of natural justice.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Slightly sinister. "We know where you live mate. You'd better shut the f'uck up or we'll send the boys round..."


In any case, if they know who I am, then I welcome them to come round my house tonight and lick my arse...

Don't worry. We know who they all are. They have a blog using wierd names and some crazy ideas and views and it's possibly as full of inane ramblings as this one. I think it's called hmrc.gov.uk

They should know who I am. I've got a picture next to my name (allegedly)