BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[smalldog]

I left the scheme 2 years before s58 so just cos the loaners are out now and back to ltd doesn't make em safe as we all know!

[Goinroamin]

Newsnight Interview with David Gauke

Did anyne see the newsnight interview regarding the Barclays situation. Jeremy Paxman seemed to raise all of the concerns that we have regarding retrospection and as always David gauke wrigged out of it.

Am I being optimistic to think that if Jeremy Paxman had been aware of our case that he could have made much more of that Inetrview.

Has anyone contacted Newnight?

[Disgusted of Coventry]

You are of course right. There is no comparison. ....

A few years ago I divorced and my ex took the most of the assets in settlement, so I have few of my own. If I go bust I would no longer be able to be a Company Director, would not be able to get a job in the City (due to credit checks) where I have worked for 25 years. I would also be barred from acting as an accountant.

In short, I would be highly skilled yet more or less unemployable. Where is the logic in that?

I'm truly sorry to hear of your ordeal. I simply don't have the vocabulary to describe my state of open-mouthed astonishment that all this is even happening.

My friend, on whose behalf these posts are made, will shortly be seeing his local MP. We're trying to compose a document for him to submit at this meeting, and I'd like to include a section comparing BN66 with the latest Barclays/retrospective development. Would you (or DR? Anyone?) mind helping fill in the gaps? The gaps are identified with square brackets - [italics], but everything else is OK.

--------------------
The following 2 items demonstrate the iniquity of BN66. Note the use of the words "full" and "wholly" in item (i); these adjectives indicate the boundaries of Government policy in relation to that which it regards as acceptable retrospective taxation measures.

i) On 27th February 2012, Mr. Gauke [Did what? ... Must include 'full retrospective effect' & 'wholly exceptional' ... 3 months latency ... must be succinct]
ii) Contrast (i) with the tortuous history of BN66 :
. (extracts from DR's timeline)

I must also draw your attention to 2 devices which HMRC used to facilitate the [passage of s58] through Parliament. The very fact that these devices were considered necessary represents HMRC's tacit acknowledgment that [s58 was likely to fail] in their absence.
a) (Conflation of change with clarify).
b) [two different interpretations of retrospective]
--------------------

Hope that makes sense! I would also welcome the tabling of any amendments. HELP!

[travellingknob]

Out of interest, how would people feel if the retrospective wording had read something along the lines of 'and this will be deemed to have had effect from the date upon which HMRC notified any individual that claims for dual taxation were being disputed'
Personally I think that would have been fair notice that something was in the pipeline. Still doesnt justify retrospection but at least many of us who were completely ignorant until 2006 that something was even going on would have been given a heads up. After all its clear HMRC were aware of it some 3 years earlier.

Would a campain with MPs stand more chance if the real fight was now focussed on the late notifications most of us had and the retrospective action having effect prior to any notification from HMRC.
This is one point completely missing from the last HR judgement.

[Emigre]

Exactly. Anyone who thinks they are safe because they used a different scheme is delusional.

Who said that only schemes would be targeted for retrospection? If the Govt have legal authority to apply tax laws retrospectively, why stop at tax schemes. Surely, ISAs represent tax avoidance.

While we are here, why not introduce retrospective laws increasing taxes and reducing benefits for the period of the last Govt (the period that caused the financial mess we are in), purely on the basis that the last Govt overspent? After all, you could argue that as fair since it was the taxpayers and benefit claimants of that period and not those of now that were given unfair advantage that was not in the wider public interest. I could clarify...

[Bewildered]

CTDs

I know its a bit like "closing the stable door", but with an uncertain timeline to conclude, I am belatedly preparing to go down the CTD route too. The low base rates make it just affordable to re-mortgage my house to cover the figure to negate future interest. I have requested MP provide me the correct figures and process to complete this.

I could not trust my investment skills to try and beat the HMRC's interest rate of 3.5% which was plan B. I considered the Euro Lottery and Vegas options too, but flipped the coin and it landed on tails, so CTD it is !

Any clever buggers who have a better idea, please PM me (the Dog is always for turning)

Dog

I purchased a CTD a few years ago, and then found myself in a position where I needed to cash it in. The downside of doing this is that once cashed in, the period that you held the CTD counts for nothing. If I purchase any more CTDs I will make sure I have multiple small denomination certificates rather than a single large certificate. That way, if I need to dip into the deposit, I can do so without losing the entire benefit.

[reckless]

Letter to MP

I am about to send my letter off to Westminster. However, living in Scotland means that Tory (or even Liberal) MPs are as scarce as hens' teeth. Has anyone any suggestions as to whom I would be best sending my letter? I can't see myself even getting the time of day from my local socialist MP!

[SantaClaus]

I am about to send my letter off to Westminster. However, living in Scotland means that Tory (or even Liberal) MPs are as scarce as hens' teeth. Has anyone any suggestions as to whom I would be best sending my letter? I can't see myself even getting the time of day from my local socialist MP!

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but only your local MP is obliged to reply to you and follow up your complaint. But no other MP is.

Might be worth reminding your socialist MP that the biggest socialist of them all, Ken Livingstone is busy avoiding taxes.

[iansbud]

even if we get to fight in ECHR...

BBC News - UK presses for European human rights convention changes

won't the govt use these plans if they got them through to scupper us there as well anyway....

per the article.... The draft that I have seen says the European court should not be able to examine cases that are "identical in substance to a claim that has been considered by a national court".

[BrilloPad]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but only your local MP is obliged to reply to you and follow up your complaint. But no other MP is.

Might be worth reminding your socialist MP that the biggest socialist of them all, Ken Livingstone is busy avoiding taxes.

Maybe be a bit more constructive? Suggest it as a good way of attacking the tories?