BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[BrilloPad]

Cheers.

I did see that page but saw the original date at July 2011.
I've just noticed that it was updated Jan 2012.

DR does I brilliant job in keeping it up to date. But this thread is too long - hopefully when there is a supreme court decision then DR will start a new one.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

When it came to tax avoidance they were on the same page as HMRC - any means justify the ends.

And the principle of 'proportionality' exists to protect the citizen from exactly that kind of logic.

Sorted!

[moira under the stairs]

And the principle of 'proportionality' exists to protect the citizen from exactly that kind of logic.

Sorted!

You would have thought it would have been that simple wouldn't you !!

[Disgusted of Coventry]

You would have thought it would have been that simple wouldn't you !!

Frankly, yes!

Every time you turn up the magnification, there's another deception, another inconsistency, another injustice. Every single time!

As DR said several pages ago, if this passes the public interest/proportionality criteria then where on earth does the boundary lie?

[moira under the stairs]

Frankly, yes!

Every time you turn up the magnification, there's another deception, another inconsistency, another injustice. Every single time!

As DR said several pages ago, if this passes the public interest/proportionality criteria then where on earth does the boundary lie?

You want to discuss inconsistency.... I'm aware of other scheme users that didn't declare their payments on their tax returns... they have been let off.... with a line drawn after the scheme was closed down, maybe those individuals would be too hard for the HMRC to find, it seems that being open and honest doesn't pay !!!! There seems to be more than meets the eye on this one....

[DonkeyRhubarb]

As DR said several pages ago, if this passes the public interest/proportionality criteria then where on earth does the boundary lie?

The courts so far have barely raised an eyebrow, so wherever the boundary does lie (assuming there even is one), it must be a lot further away than BN66.

The judgment sends a very clear message to the authorities that they can introduce even more extreme measures without falling foul of the courts.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

The judgment sends a very clear message to the authorities that they can introduce even more extreme measures without falling foul of the courts.

Isn't that, of itself, an issue of public interest? One that should be considered under A1P1?

It won't just be those directly affected by BN66 who will be interested in the outcome of this case. Presumably there will be others - people interested in setting up shop, or otherwise investing in the UK - who will want to know about the tax framework within which they would find themselves operating. If unsatisfied by HMRC's lack of integrity & veracity, then aren't they likely to take their business, talents & skills elsewhere?

[centurian]

The courts so far have barely raised an eyebrow, so wherever the boundary does lie (assuming there even is one), it must be a lot further away than BN66.

That is because I suspect that almost all legislation has some element of this duplicity going on. It's only the intense spotlight that has been placed upon it - that it has come to light in this case.

That's why the courts are not batting an eyelid. They just see it as the normal business of government.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

That is because I suspect that almost all legislation has some element of this duplicity going on. It's only the intense spotlight that has been placed upon it - that it has come to light in this case.

That's why the courts are not batting an eyelid. They just see it as the normal business of government.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make but I agree with you the courts don't care how legislation is spun in Parliament. A couple of years ago someone off the forum went to see their local MP John Redwood about BN66. He had served as a Minister in the 1980's Tory government. They mentioned about the misleading of Parliament aspect and he said it happens all the time, it's par for the course. As you say, duplicity to some extent is the normal business of government.

My point was that the courts haven't raised any concerns about the principle of retrospectively amending tax law over such a long period of time.

[TAF4]

........ Presumably there will be others - people interested in setting up shop, or otherwise investing in the UK - who will want to know about the tax framework within which they would find themselves operating.

In the interests of 'doing Business in the UK' of course it will be spun the opposite way. It can be shown that Big Business, MP's, Lords (except for FredG), Senior Civil Servants, and others within the 'Establishment' (showing my age there), will always be able to avoid reimbursement of tax legitimately avoided no matter how dubious. Even fraudulent expenses claims are overlooked as is doing time in HM's nick.


An earlier post on the subject