BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[OnYourBikeGB]

I like this idea, let's get this going viral!

Anyone a decent artist?

Do we have an artist out there? Someone who could do a caricature? The fuse is burning, if we really are going to try something, we've got to start. A jpeg image we can circulate to the press, MPs, (MP as well, so they know we stil exist) and any tax body that has shown concerns. One that sums up the situation and gets people curious.

[portseven]

Do we have an artist out there? Someone who could do a caricature? The fuse is burning, if we really are going to try something, we've got to start. A jpeg image we can circulate to the press, MPs, (MP as well, so they know we stil exist) and any tax body that has shown concerns. One that sums up the situation and gets people curious.

Agree, if we can get a picture I will print some and distribute, plus via my own online peer group

[freedomfighter]

Enslaving the little people forever with paying backdated taxes

Do we have an artist out there? Someone who could do a caricature? The fuse is burning, if we really are going to try something, we've got to start. A jpeg image we can circulate to the press, MPs, (MP as well, so they know we stil exist) and any tax body that has shown concerns. One that sums up the situation and gets people curious.

How about the Govt and HMRC on a balcony wining with their arms around Mr Goldmans, Mr Vodaphone, JPMorgan and Barclays, overlooking the "little people" below with Shackles/Balls and chains and throwing a large Rock with Retorspective Tax onto those below. i.e. we will always be enslaved to their whims.

[ir35amnesia]

Alternative Approach

1/ The government has a legitimate right to introduce retrospective tax law to prevent "abusive" etc etc tax schemes.
2/ one of the the perceived abuses was using a Double Tax Treaty to avoid paying any tax WHEN the purpose of the treaty was to avoid the same income being taxed twice.

When signing up to the scheme WAS this principle explained to you in sufficient detail so that you understood you may be "joining an abusive scheme".

Plus even though Padmore "retro" did NOT actually collect/charge any retro tax it certainly sent out a message to the tax profession.

[Dieselpower]

Retro

I really think we have a strong argument in favour of retro changing our tax returns for the years affected, given the retrospectivity now upheld by the UK courts. It would only be equitable that when faced with a position whereby HMRC are able to go back in time, then so should we able to do so. i.e. We must have an opportunity to reconsider our tax returns on the basis of what now appears to be retrospectiove fact - or another ie - imagine its 2006 and we know that we will be taxed on the income going through IoM, then we could either choose to pay out as dividends (better) or as income (worse). It is perfectly reasonable and logical that we should be allowed to make that choice retrospectively. Indeed that very argument could cause this issue to go on for 2 or 3 years, because it would need to be argued fully in court. Its that sort of argument which would in my opinion garner sympathy from ECHR. (ie. "ok, under duress, we have accepted retrospection, no matter how abhorrent such government actions are in a democartic society - but at least allow us to re-categorise those earnings retospectively as well please")

If my case gets to Tribunal I will ensure this matter forms a central focus. I really do see it as being fair.

Such changes would obviously involve declaring dividends instead of the monies being classed as income.

I am sure HMRC have already realised this, and their decision to set up a bespoke Debt management Team for our specific situation seems to indicate that perhaps some fairness/flexibility will come into play - otherwise why bother setting up a swat DM team, when HMRC already has a massive enforcement team in place???

It seems that HMRC immediately categorise non payers into two groups - can't pay and won't pay. If they suspect the latter then they come at you all guns blazing (fair enough) but if you do wish to pay but simply cannot do so at the present time, then their instructions are to negotiate reasonable time frames for payment. usually this is up to 6 months but again the fact that a. they've set up a separte team and b. some of our amounts are MASSIVE, then perhaps they will display some grreater flexibility. However in this case, because emotions are so high over the obvious unfairness of the situation, many of us could fall into the won't pay (on principle) category. Principles cost money. Negotiation - if and only if we get to the very end of this long road may be the most sensible way forward; especially if it would mean averting bankruptcy and keeping our homes, and paying it back over several years.

All the above notwithstanding the fact that this matter is far from over. I can certainly see this rumbling on for 12 months. Some people simply have too much at stake to allow MP to sit back and do nothing. They will not allow MP to do nothing. My exposure is regretably approaching 7 figures, and I fall into that category.

[Toocan]

Plus even though Padmore "retro" did NOT actually collect/charge any retro tax it certainly sent out a message to the tax profession.

Have you read the Padmore debate transcript?

You're right that the Padmore "retro" sent out a message - the message was that you would be judged with the law as it stood when you had the power of decision - not as it might have been 8 years later.

The UK/IoM DTA did not contain any anti-avoidance measures - it was agreed long before this was a consideration. In fact, one of the purposes of these treaties was to allow places like IoM to make some money from financial services. It isn't an accident that UK dependancies have been making money from tax avoidance since the second world war. That was the intention - how else could they have made any money in the post-war world?

[OnYourBikeGB]

How about the Govt and HMRC on a balcony wining with their arms around Mr Goldmans, Mr Vodaphone, JPMorgan and Barclays, overlooking the "little people" below with Shackles/Balls and chains and throwing a large Rock with Retorspective Tax onto those below. i.e. we will always be enslaved to their whims.

Works for me.

[moira under the stairs]

1/ The government has a legitimate right to introduce retrospective tax law to prevent "abusive" etc etc tax schemes.
2/ one of the the perceived abuses was using a Double Tax Treaty to avoid paying any tax WHEN the purpose of the treaty was to avoid the same income being taxed twice.

When signing up to the scheme WAS this principle explained to you in sufficient detail so that you understood you may be "joining an abusive scheme".

Plus even though Padmore "retro" did NOT actually collect/charge any retro tax it certainly sent out a message to the tax profession.

Hmmm... interesting, reading this and your previous post's seems to put you in the same sort of light as AJ or a HMRC stooge.

[Ninja]

Email to Treascom

Done

"I am writing to you on the eve of your Treasury Select Committee meeting to discuss whether it is ‘fair’ to tax Barclays Capital retrospectively on their recent tax avoidance scheme. I understand that the time period in question would back date the tax to having been effective from December 2011; some 3 months or so.

I agree that the passing of retrospective laws (ex post facto) does have its place, provided that legislators use extreme caution and due diligence. In many countries (many of which are in the EU), ex post facto law is unconstitutional, and its use elsewhere is very rare.

However may I draw your attention to the case of Budget Note 66, Clause 55 which was enacted as part of the Finance Act (2008) where a DTA tax avoidance scheme was closed with retrospective effect dating back several years. This legislation is both extreme and severe; it being described by Chartered Institute of Taxation as ‘‘extreme and unjustified’’; the Law Society believed it was ‘‘wrong in principle’’; and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales warned, ‘‘it sends out a very damaging signal about the stability of the UK tax system’’. In addition no prior impact assessment was conducted by JCHR as to its affect upon taxpayers. It is interesting to note that in Finance Act 2009 a similar tax avoidance scheme - used by bankers - was closed; and it took effect prospectively not retrospectively.

Up to 3,000 independent contractors, mainly in IT, are affected by this change of law, and the majority face bankruptcy because of it. Some of those affected have specialised in financial services, and hence risk being denied access to future employment. I am a family man in my early nn’s, having worked continuously since leaving school at the age of 16. HMRC are demanding £x+, and to add insult to injury there is interest to pay! This is interest on outstanding tax which only became taxable because of retrospective legislation. It is outrageous! My finances will never recover from this.

If you are still of the opinion that retrospective legislation is appropriate and fair for those whom you believe have abused the system, then what were your thoughts when Sir Thomas Legg recommended retrospectively changing the rules governing MP’s expenses. Many of your colleagues thought retrospective changes would be unfair, even though acknowledged widespread abuse had taken place.

I know that the terms of reference for this particular select committee inhibit debating BN66 specifically; however I urge you and your colleagues to consider our plight, and remove the threat of financial ruin from our families. As a group we strongly believe that we have been extremely harshly and disproportionately dealt with, and our resolve to right this gross injustice is hardening. For all of this time we have waited patiently and quietly, putting our faith in British justice only for our hopes to be dashed. If parliamentarians continue to ignore our plight then our campaign will have to become more vocal and more public. After all, if we are ruined then we will have nothing more to lose and be well-motivated to continue the fight."

regards
Ninja

[moira under the stairs]

Done

"I am writing to you on the eve of your Treasury Select Committee meeting to discuss whether it is ‘fair’ to tax Barclays Capital retrospectively on their recent tax avoidance scheme. I understand that the time period in question would back date the tax to having been effective from December 2011; some 3 months or so.

I agree that the passing of retrospective laws (ex post facto) does have its place, provided that legislators use extreme caution and due diligence. In many countries (many of which are in the EU), ex post facto law is unconstitutional, and its use elsewhere is very rare.

However may I draw your attention to the case of Budget Note 66, Clause 55 which was enacted as part of the Finance Act (2008) where a DTA tax avoidance scheme was closed with retrospective effect dating back several years. This legislation is both extreme and severe; it being described by Chartered Institute of Taxation as ‘‘extreme and unjustified’’; the Law Society believed it was ‘‘wrong in principle’’; and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales warned, ‘‘it sends out a very damaging signal about the stability of the UK tax system’’. In addition no prior impact assessment was conducted by JCHR as to its affect upon taxpayers. It is interesting to note that in Finance Act 2009 a similar tax avoidance scheme - used by bankers - was closed; and it took effect prospectively not retrospectively.

Up to 3,000 independent contractors, mainly in IT, are affected by this change of law, and the majority face bankruptcy because of it. Some of those affected have specialised in financial services, and hence risk being denied access to future employment. I am a family man in my early nn’s, having worked continuously since leaving school at the age of 16. HMRC are demanding £x+, and to add insult to injury there is interest to pay! This is interest on outstanding tax which only became taxable because of retrospective legislation. It is outrageous! My finances will never recover from this.

If you are still of the opinion that retrospective legislation is appropriate and fair for those whom you believe have abused the system, then what were your thoughts when Sir Thomas Legg recommended retrospectively changing the rules governing MP’s expenses. Many of your colleagues thought retrospective changes would be unfair, even though acknowledged widespread abuse had taken place.

I know that the terms of reference for this particular select committee inhibit debating BN66 specifically; however I urge you and your colleagues to consider our plight, and remove the threat of financial ruin from our families. As a group we strongly believe that we have been extremely harshly and disproportionately dealt with, and our resolve to right this gross injustice is hardening. For all of this time we have waited patiently and quietly, putting our faith in British justice only for our hopes to be dashed. If parliamentarians continue to ignore our plight then our campaign will have to become more vocal and more public. After all, if we are ruined then we will have nothing more to lose and be well-motivated to continue the fight."

regards
Ninja

Bravo Sir....