BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Isn't there a fly in the ointment though?

BN66 may have been dressed up to look like a clarification of 1987 but what Parliament passed into law (section 58) was a fully retrospective tax.

Unlike in 1987, there was no ring fencing to protect the likes of us who had already made claims.

[swede]

Do you think MP's legal team are aware of this?
If you're not involved in talks with Gittins you should be.

I want to be sure whomever represents us has all the ammunition they need.

Agreed.

One problem with this forum though is that Hector will be fore-warned that this will be coming his way and doing there damnedest to get round it. Any ideas we put on hear are not going to come as suprises to them. So from this aspect, I'm quite glad that MP have not sent us letters telling us what they're planning on doing, so we can write it all down on here making Mr B's job a piece of cake.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Do you think MP's legal team are aware of this?
If you're not involved in talks with Gittins you should be.

I want to be sure whomever represents us has all the ammunition they need.

Think of swans and webbed feet.

BTW, as my own worst critic, I could argue that the ICTA 1988 (Taxes Act) removed the exemption afforded to Padmore (once the legal route had ended). Yep, true. But that has nothing to do with how the retrospective legislation was executed. Read it any way you choose, you still come up with the same answers:

1. 1987 retrospection was to prevent new claims for tax relief and for no other reason
2. Any existing claims for tax relief (under the DTA) were allowed. A carve out existed for Padmore and Co explicitly and the retro element of Clause 62 would not prevent existing claims being ruled upon based on the law as it stood before the retro legislation. The fact that only 3 claims had been identified in 1987 compared to the 15,000 partners in foreign partnerships is irrelevant. Today we have 3,000 claims for relief based on a totally different legal basis.
3. 1987 allowed for courts to rule on claims as the law stood before the retro change and so the same should be applied to us for the purpose on consistency and in support of a mere clarification to the law.

And before someone has a go at me, it's HMRC that contend that the law applied to us. The Branningan letter in 2008 said:

"The consequence of the announcement is that assuming the proposals become law, the share of the income arising in the Partnership(s) will be chargeable on you for every year in which such income arose or arises."

How so? That's HMRC's view. But Parliament ensured in 1987 that courts would decide this and I don't recall anything in 2008 changing that - after all it was a mere clarification.

[SantaClaus]

Agreed.

One problem with this forum though is that Hector will be fore-warned that this will be coming his way and doing there damnedest to get round it. Any ideas we put on hear are not going to come as suprises to them. So from this aspect, I'm quite glad that MP have not sent us letters telling us what they're planning on doing, so we can write it all down on here making Mr B's job a piece of cake.

Or maybe we are just sending Hector on a goose chase

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So from this aspect, I'm quite glad that MP have not sent us letters telling us what they're planning on doing, so we can write it all down on here making Mr B's job a piece of cake.

Incidentally, while we're on this subject.

I have it on good authority that HMRC are getting hold of the MP circulars from somewhere.

It seems not all of us can be trusted.

[screwthis]

Incidentally, while we're on this subject.

I have it on good authority that HMRC are getting hold of the MP circulars from somewhere.

It seems not all of us can be trusted.

So HMRC know that MP are surprised and disappointed.

[smalldog]

Incidentally, while we're on this subject.

I have it on good authority that HMRC are getting hold of the MP circulars from somewhere.

It seems not all of us can be trusted.

What a F***ing scumbag!!!

I dont get why someone who is affected would do that??? Maybe there is a mole in MP, aggrieved employee maybe?

[TalkingCheese]

So HMRC know that MP are surprised and disappointed.

My thoughts exactly. They can't gain any upper hand from that I think right?

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Isn't there a fly in the ointment though?

BN66 may have been dressed up to look like a clarification of 1987 but what Parliament passed into law (section 58) was a fully retrospective tax.

Unlike in 1987, there was no ring fencing to protect the likes of us who had already made claims.

DR, quite so. But recall HMRC giving justification that 1987 was the "signal" that they had acted retrospectively and could do so again. Parker made much of this. Wierd then that the 2 forms of retro referred to in 1987 has one type applied then and the other applied now via a clarification. Notwithstanding, retro then did not prevent a challenge in the courts being made as the law stood before the retro legislation. The Rossminster book makes for good reading on this. What's the point in the Judiciary if Parliament can pass retro laws that cannot be challenged in court? I think that's called North Korea. So as Parliament did in 1987 was to allow a court process to run separate from the legislation.

I grant you Parliament did not debate this aspect in 2008, but nor did they overturn it. Just because it was not brought up does not mean that "what Parliament intended" can be taken by default. Hence why contacting MP's is so important.

I'm not trying to stir up a case of belief here, but with or without MP, I'd happily go see the good folks at HMRC with the counter case and perhaps ask if I could have Paxman come along to witness the debate prior to a potential handing over of dosh.

But I think you have made a good point - "dressed up" is a fair description of BN66. Well, if something can be dressed it makes sense it can be undressed - laid bare. If that has no purpose or meaning then we might as well just pay up or file for bankruptcy now.

As I said in an earlier post, if we lose, then I'd still want to tell the story as I suspect many eyebrows would join the hair line and many an HMRC bottom would dilate and contract rapidly to the words of "shilling, half crown, shilling, half crown....".

But hey, before then, MP's need to know what went on - what really went on. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas but looking at the BN66 debate you'd think they did.

[TalkingCheese]

What a F***ing scumbag!!!

But I agree with you sd... Pretty scummy!