BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[stuffed]

Stuffed again?

With 6-7 years of BN66 to deal with on my mind, I decided to head back to Ltd Co.
Just finding out my Accountant has embezzled my full years tax return of around £30K, along with about 30 more of his clients money as well also effected. Supposedly very little money left in the accounts and I am probably out nearly the full amount as a result of it, as obviously Hector is still wanting all his money. And as he gets dragged through the courts I am sure there wont be any left in the end.
I swear I really need a break with all of this.
Does anyone know any avenue of reprive from this latest nightmare, or am I stuffed, and just got to take this unfortunate scenario on the chin?

[smalldog]

HMRC get a kicking - again

Nice to see HMRC getting another kicking in the european courts, this time they have spent yet more tax payers money and lost a case this time a referral all the way to europe so this is still hope!! Read this in the metro this morning, suprised I can only find reference to it in the shropshire star!!!!:

Sky wins set-top box court ruling « Shropshire Star

isnt that two cases in as many weeks they have now lost....that must be cheap!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

With 6-7 years of BN66 to deal with on my mind, I decided to head back to Ltd Co.
Just finding out my Accountant has embezzled my full years tax return of around £30K, along with about 30 more of his clients money as well also effected. Supposedly very little money left in the accounts and I am probably out nearly the full amount as a result of it, as obviously Hector is still wanting all his money. And as he gets dragged through the courts I am sure there wont be any left in the end.
I swear I really need a break with all of this.
Does anyone know any avenue of reprive from this latest nightmare, or am I stuffed, and just got to take this unfortunate scenario on the chin?

I have PM'd you.

[williamsmx]

Honest opinion on chances

Hi,

I am new to this forum but I have been reading regularly because a tax avoidance scheme I used has also failed because the government changed the law retrospectively. The time scales are nothing like yours - they backdated it by a few months to just before we executed. We have gone straight to ECHR and the case was thrown out by a single judge. They would not hear the case. They would not give a reason for not hearing the case. They also did not allow us to appeal against that decision. It was a complete dead end and a real blow that I am struggling to understand.

We are now awaiting the decision on the Huitson case before deciding what to do next.

For the people on this forum that have experience of cases such as this - what do you honestly think the chances of success are? My advisers think the chances are low but I get mixed feelings when I read this forum.

Good luck to everyone involved in this. I really do feel for you.. it is truly unfair what the government has done in this case.

Regards,

[AlbionRovers]

And you post this rare offering last thing on a Friday why? No offence, but you'll be sending us tax demands on DEC 22nd next.

I smell sh*te. Have a nice day.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hi,

I am new to this forum but I have been reading regularly because a tax avoidance scheme I used has also failed because the government changed the law retrospectively. The time scales are nothing like yours - they backdated it by a few months to just before we executed. We have gone straight to ECHR and the case was thrown out by a single judge. They would not hear the case. They would not give a reason for not hearing the case. They also did not allow us to appeal against that decision. It was a complete dead end and a real blow that I am struggling to understand.

We are now awaiting the decision on the Huitson case before deciding what to do next.

For the people on this forum that have experience of cases such as this - what do you honestly think the chances of success are? My advisers think the chances are low but I get mixed feelings when I read this forum.

Good luck to everyone involved in this. I really do feel for you.. it is truly unfair what the government has done in this case.

Regards,

Would I be right in thinking you are referring to the scheme marketed by NT Advisors, which was subject to retro in FA 2009?

As I recall, the period of retrospection was 3 months. I think it was always going to be tough to argue that this was contrary to A1P1, and I believe the Joint Committee on Human Rights said as much.

The period of retrospection in our case is 7 years (2008 back to 2001) which is obviously far more extreme.

Even our case is a big hurdle to cross but we also have another party (PwC) challenging it on an aspect of EU Treaty Law which is more robust than Human Rights.

My personal view (for what it's worth) is if you can't win in the UK courts (taking it to the Supreme Court) then you have little hope in Europe.

The Strasbourg court has a monumental backlog of cases, so it doesn't surprise me that they are throwing a lot out.

[williamsmx]

You would be thinking right..

For sure, your case is far more extreme and far more unfair and I feel for you completely.. If you lose, we have zero chance. Personally, it has dire consequences for me as I had not planned for this failing and other personal issues has meant my house is on the line too.

The principal remains for both cases.. We avoided tax, we didn't evade it. I even asked at the time if they could back date a law change and was told it was highly unlikely as it was against human rights. They did not tell me about your case. If I had known, I would have pulled out.

It is the first time I have done anything like this and it will be the last.

I wish you all the best, not just for my own benefit but because I understand the pressure people are under. I would not wish that on my worst enemy.

Good luck to you all.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

The period of retrospection in our case is 7 years (2008 back to 2001) which is obviously far more extreme

DR, you're right in principle that it goes back 7 years for the purpose of how far they can try to tax us. But technically it goes back 61 years to when the DTA was enacted. And that is a hell of a hit on Human Rights!

Whilst any form of retrospective tax is a worry, I'd be happy that the Rees Rules were applied and it goes no further back than the date at which it was announced. The then Opposition called for that to be 12th March 2008. I'd not have a problem with January 2008 (3 months) when BN66 was first heard about beyond the dirty walls of HMRC. But 61 years?? They're having a laugh!

Without the 6 year limit they could try and claim tax from someone by digging up their remains. You'd need a law on Deceased Human Rights to protect against that. And it is this scale that sets our case aside from others. Strike a fair balance as Parker put it? Tell me where anything going back 61 years is fair?

Retrospectively, I wouldn't have known how to w*nk when Padmore came along given 61 years. And the only notion of a dick would be one of our boys in blue or in hindsight a Tax Inspector.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

You would be thinking right..

For sure, your case is far more extreme and far more unfair and I feel for you completely.. If you lose, we have zero chance. Personally, it has dire consequences for me as I had not planned for this failing and other personal issues has meant my house is on the line too.

The principal remains for both cases.. We avoided tax, we didn't evade it. I even asked at the time if they could back date a law change and was told it was highly unlikely as it was against human rights. They did not tell me about your case. If I had known, I would have pulled out.

It is the first time I have done anything like this and it will be the last.

I wish you all the best, not just for my own benefit but because I understand the pressure people are under. I would not wish that on my worst enemy.

Good luck to you all.

Not having a go you understand. I don't like retro in any form. But I can accept the Rees Rules as a starting point. You need to start somewhere. I think if DR is correct then the HR angle is difficult with 3 months. Doesn't make it any more fair. But the history behind BN66 is possibly unique in this respect. I doubt anyone including Hector would disagree that the only reason for BN66 is down to ineptness in HMRC and the need to remedy that.

Taking a wholly transparent arrangement, telling HMRC and then waiting 8 years to be told (for the first time) the grounds on why it doesn't work is down to a case of "what Parliament intended" is simply not good enough. For if they intended it in 1987 or 1947 then they intended it in 2001 - 2008. Which prick was asleep at the helm during that period in HMRC where this apparent blindingly obvious point was NEVER once referred to?

And to suggest that BN66 is proportionate is beyond the pale. Proportionate to what? Certainly not in terms of taking inemptness on a grand scale and passing the liability to us to make do. HMRC may have a job to tackle avoidance but if this were Man Utd, the idea of simply not trying a tackle for the duration of a game would have you dropped and selling burgers at Old Trafford as a "reward".

But no, in HMRC, you get rewarded. It's like giving Rooney a pay rise for not scoring. Come to think of it...

Good weekend all.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I think if DR is correct then the HR angle is difficult with 3 months.

We know HMRC tell lies so this may not be correct but this is how they portrayed it:

HMRC announced legislation in Jan 2009 to close the loophole used by the NTA scheme.
NTA then restructured their scheme to get around this. (I presume SA returns were then filed on this basis)
On becoming aware of this, in April 2009 HMRC asked the Treasury to amend the legislation retrospectively back to the date of the original January announcement (3 months).