BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Donnie Darko]

It may seem like an elephant to us

Judge Parker in the High Court did not consider the 1987 legislaiton to apply to the scheme. He did not consider whether Parliament had been misled, but given that s.58 was presented to Parliament as a clarificaiton, and given that the 1987 legislation certainly did not apply to the scheme - how can Parliament have been anything but misled.

Anyone see an elephant in the room?

But the reality is there's nothing exceptional here.

Try googling parliament and misled or misleading, and you'll find tons of examples - many far more serious than s.58.

Coincidentally a prominent Barrister has even alleged that Parliament was misled over another section of FA 2008.

Being "economical with the truth" is par for the course in Government, and they almost always get away with it.

[SantaClaus]

A very Happy New Year to you all! Let's hope 2011 is the year that proves the British justice system is still fair.

On a serious note, I'd just like to remind everyone that this is a public forum. That means anything you type here could be used against you at a later date. Hiding behind a username is not a guarantee of anonymity.

Needless to say, the same goes for posting your private details on facebook, twitter, etc.

It has been said the authorities don't care about censoring the internet any more, because they stand to gain much more by people posting details of their private lives online.

[Emigre]

Well Santa, I guess you have a whole year off now? Happy New Year to you and everyone else on this thread.

British Justice and fair play have a an opportunity to shine in the next few weeks. Fingers crossed, let it happen.

[Slobbo]

Politicians and babies nappies have one thing in common. Both should be changed regularly for the same reason.

[Slobbo]

There are 3 kinds of lie. A small lie, a big lie and politics.

[Slobbo]

And one more.

What is the difference between the government and the mafia? One of them is organised.

Guess who got a joke book for his xmas!

[SantaClaus]

And one more.

What is the difference between the government and the mafia? One of them is organised.

If it wasn't true I'd laugh rather than cry!

[PlaneSailing]

Thinking outside the box...

If I were made bankrupt, it's unlikely I'd get another job in my chosen field. Looks
like Paul Hogan has a similar problem:


BBC News - Paul Hogan to sue Australia government

[SantaClaus]

If I were made bankrupt, it's unlikely I'd get another job in my chosen field. Looks
like Paul Hogan has a similar problem:


BBC News - Paul Hogan to sue Australia government

Good on Paul Hogan!

When we win this in Europe (forget the kangaroo British courts), lets sue the pants off HMRC and the British govt.

[Buzby]

Tax bodies flag risks of undertaking ‘artificial’ tax avoidance

just read this:

Tax bodies flag risks of undertaking ‘artificial’ tax avoidance

Date:
05 January 2011
Author(s):
Andrew Goodall

The leading tax bodies have updated their joint guidance for tax advisers on professional conduct in relation to taxation. It was last updated in 2006, and the latest version has been the subject of discussion since 2007.

It includes guidance on completion of tax returns; access to data by HMRC and other authorities; irregularities including errors; HMRC rulings; and tax avoidance.

The guidance on tax avoidance is largely unchanged. While it points out that avoidance is legal, and all taxpayers ‘have the right to arrange their affairs under the law to minimise their liability to tax’, it also advises members to consider carefully, and in the light of the client’s wider interests, the ‘risks and merits’ of arrangements that the tax authorities may view as artificial.

A new section advises that members should ‘ensure that clients are fully aware of the risks of undertaking transactions that HMRC may regard as “unacceptable” and that such transactions may be subject to litigation or possible changes in law’. The government indicated in 2004 that such changes may be retrospective.

'Professional Conduct in relation to Taxation' has been issued by the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the Association of Taxation Technicians, the Association of Certified Chartered Accountants, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, the Institute of Indirect Taxation and the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners.

So if the government warned in 2004 about being retrospective then how could we expect that when the scheme started in 2001?