BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[bananarepublic]

I've been thinking about HMRC enforcing collection. Considering that there is - hopefully - going to be a legal challenge at the ECHR which may find that S58 breaches our human rights could we have a claim against those public or private individuals who enforce collection?

We are all familiar with the Nuremburg Defence - "I was following orders". What legal protections do those acting on behalf of the state have if it is later found that their state sanctioned actions have broken our human rights? If S58 is found to breach our human rights the retrospection would be removed, and if collection had been enforced wouldn't this then be an illegal act. In fact wouldn't it be theft?

I am grasping at straws but isn't there a legal angle here to use to defer collection?

[Buzby]

ECHR

I've been thinking about HMRC enforcing collection. Considering that there is - hopefully - going to be a legal challenge at the ECHR which may find that S58 breaches our human rights could we have a claim against those public or private individuals who enforce collection?

We are all familiar with the Nuremburg Defence - "I was following orders". What legal protections do those acting on behalf of the state have if it is later found that their state sanctioned actions have broken our human rights? If S58 is found to breach our human rights the retrospection would be removed, and if collection had been enforced wouldn't this then be an illegal act. In fact wouldn't it be theft?

I am grasping at straws but isn't there a legal angle here to use to defer collection?

I was thinking along a similar line - I thought a case about double taxation had already been to ECHR and won - i thought we had discussed it on this forum - or did I dream it?

[Toocan]

http://www.11kbw.com/articles/docs/C...P1Taxation.pdf

Our case is a towards the end of this article.

The problem with this, and with Parker's judgement is that it does not look at the Padmore retrospection honestly.

The retrospection was used simply to prevent people who had not made claims from then doing so. No one paid any extra tax. That completely changes what Padmore says. This wasn't a small carve out - hundreds of people benefited from it. The amounts were significant.

When Parliament passed Padmore (in 1987) they basically said, if you find a loophole in the tax law you can keep your gains.

Reading the Padmore debate make this VERY clear.

[travellingknob]

I've always wondered whether the wrong case was taken to Judicial Review. It seems that everybody affected or nobody affected should be taxed and I would have thought someone affected by discovery would have been a better bet.

Exactly and this is a very important point for tribunals because several things need to be tested:
a) Did the original scheme actually work
b) If so, does the retrospective tax even apply given the law at the time applied to transactions of that time. Current law cannot apply to historic transactions regardless of the retrospective debate
c) Out of time enquiries
d) Interest from what date
e) personal circumstances - all all the above havent been decided plus any additional
specific to you then your fight continues

Do we have more to add to this list ?

[p4nd4b34r]

appeals and discovery

Can any one with contacts at MP advise me if they are appealing on different grounds for returns that were opened out of time on the basis of 'discovery'. I am wondering if now is the time to take the matter into my own hands, maybe using the guy mentioned earlier in the thread to handle my appeals. I'm not sure I want to be part of a group process any more.

[GottaBeOptimistic]

TalkingCheese - Clarification

Not so much different as an additional tack...

Everyone I speak to face to face about this cannot believe it. I know that Joe public will see us as tax dodgers when they read an article but why when I speak to anyone are they sympathetic and see it as outrageous. It is because I can explain what the real problem is here without spin and in layman terms. Perhaps we can use it to get friends/families to write to MPs, especially if they are in a particular constituency ?

........

BBC News - Will retrospective taxes affect us all?
Jill Kirby: Retrospective legislation may produce applause today but it will damage Britain in the years to come Conservative Home Columnists
http://www.tax.org.uk/Resources/CIOT...OT%20Nov10.pdf - see P8, 7.4.
BN66 timeline : Freelance Supermarket
http://www.tax.org.uk/Resources/CIOT...egislation.pdf
MPs to investigate retrospective tax after government avoidance crackdown at Barclays - Telegraph
Director of Finance Online - Blogs - The Edge » Blog Archive » Backdating tax is bad
http://www.freshfields.com/publicati.../nov08/BTR.pdf

In this interview : BBC News - Will retrospective taxes affect us all?, it's quoted that.....

"Even more relevant is that the very tax laws used in Mr Huitson's avoidance scheme had themselves been amended retrospectively more than 20 years earlier in the Finance (No 2) Act 1987.

This, said Judge Parker, should have "sent out a clear signal to taxpayers and their advisers that the legislature would be very likely to take effective and decisive steps to counter [their avoidance], even with retrospective measures".

I may have missed the point here with this but can somebody clarify exactly what had been "amended retrospectively more than 20 years earlier" ?

[OnYourBikeGB]

Not so much different as an additional tack...

Everyone I speak to face to face about this cannot believe it. I know that Joe public will see us as tax dodgers when they read an article but why when I speak to anyone are they sympathetic and see it as outrageous. It is because I can explain what the real problem is here without spin and in layman terms. Perhaps we can use it to get friends/families to write to MPs, especially if they are in a particular constituency ?

Anyone think that what we need for Joe Public is an image/cartoon that we could distribute maybe put up on websites or ask people to post for us? Try explaining the facts to most people and watch their eyes glaze. Something like a hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil with Cameron, Gauke, while Hartnett with a glass of wine in one hand, arm round the bankers drops a ton weight with RETRO written on it on people below. Something that makes people ask and wonder what it's about. Then a symbol that represents our campaign. We ask some websites if they'd carry the symbol, which links to this forum or another one we set up. Just a suggestion, I've been trying to think how we can engage the public without boring them or making them hostile.

[GottaBeOptimistic]

Mp letter sent

Sent this morning, I guess "every little helps".....

[GottaBeOptimistic]

Nervous times

And in case you needed any motivation...

1) Montpelier have heard from a couple of clients, who spoke to HMRC, that HMRC are getting ready to send out 3000 tax demands in the next 4 weeks.

2) I have also heard that HMRC are planning to set up a dedicated unit in DMB, just for the scheme, to deal with enforcement/collection.

I think it's really important that MP give some further communication. DR's comments about collection demands make me nervous because people won't know what to do when these arrive and there will be uproar on this board.

I'm in support of MP, but we need some further news flow..... and soon.......

[BrilloPad]

I think it's really important that MP give some further communication. DR's comments about collection demands make me nervous because people won't know what to do when these arrive and there will be uproar on this board.

I'm in support of MP, but we need some further news flow..... and soon.......

I think everyone here is in agreement with you. Alas Montp do not.

Anyone fancy popping over to the IoM?