BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Toocan]

Does anybody have a list of the most useful/influential MP's to contact?

I suggest that people nearby those areas could either take out adverts in local papers or leaflet high streets urging people write to MP regarding retrospecitive taxation. In middleclass area's I am sure we would find sympathy as it is something that is likely to affect them in future.

Also, how about bulk printing up an 'information leaflet' giving a history of BN66 and key facts in an easy to understand way. This could be a good way of raising awareness and presenting the clear facts.

YOUR MP is the best one to write to or meet. If you don't want to, then write to David Gauke at the Treasury instead. But only your MP has to reply.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Facts

Fact #1 - The retrospection in 1987 was used for a single purpose. It was to prevent a restricted class of person (some 15,000 of them) - partners in a foreign partnership from making tax relief claims where none existed before. BN66 uses retrospection to ensure that where claims via a trust had been made, none would be allowed and tax would become due. INVERSE EFFECT.

Fact #2 - 1987 there was a risk to the public purse of some 100M which was the reason why Parliament legislated when they did with retrospective effect. This was a risk of money being taken out (debited) from the public purse by the 15,000 restricted class of person in #1 above. In 2008 the disputed tax had not been paid to the Exchequer yet the exact same words were used in 2008 as 1987 to justify retrospection which is the opposite retrospection and reason for it compared to 1987. INVERSE FINANCIAL OUTCOME.

Fact #3 - In 1987 it was a restricted class of person being referenced - partners in a foreign partnership. We were never partners in any partnership. In 1987, legislation had a wider meaning that was explicit (and noted in the IR Explanatory Notes for Padmore) that the wider meaning was in terms of DTA's since at the time only 5 referred specifically to partnerships. Therefore, the restricted class of person also had application to all DTA's not just the Jersey one that Padmore used. Wider meaning in 2008 was justified to mean us and had been the intent of Parliament in 1987. Not a single word in 1987 refers to trusts only those in these 3 facts.

There are many more but my keyboard is melting. Try them on for size with your MP.

Of course the sceptics will ask for evidence. Well try Hansard for July 15 1987 and the BN66 Treasury Select Committee debate on BN66 in 2008. Of course there's the HMRC annoted Hansard pages too and the IR 1987 Explanatory Notes. There's probably heaps more but every FoI request for them was rejected...

Oh and of course, Hansard is the record of Parliament which is supreme. So the evidence is Parliament itself. That should be enough for an MP to get stuck in.

Add Fact #4 that the Rees-Rules would have prevented BN66 going any further back than 12th March 2008. But they were never applied.

[silver_lining]

Fact #1 - The retrospection in 1987 was used for a single purpose. It was to ............ further back than 12th March 2008. But they were never applied.

In summary, do we know why RRs were not applied in this instance?

What the specific argument against was...... ?

The RRs are informal, best practice guidance is there a solid legal reason thats states should be applied.... ?

[A-Nony-Mouse]

Retrospective...

Since I'm no longer a UK resident, I think my residency should also be restrospectively applied.

HMRC now owes me a lot of money?

I'm not sure who my MP would be given the lack of residency, so don't know who to send a letter to.

Regardless, even if HMRC think they can apply tax restrospectively to something that was 100% legal at the time (working hard at only paying what needs to be paid, not trying to avoid paying my fair due at all), with several hits financially due to a lack of work from time to time including a small business that I invested a lot of money into going down the tubes over the last few years, I have nothing to pay an illegal retrospective tax in any case without being kicked out on to the street along with my family.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

In summary, do we know why RRs were not applied in this instance?

What the specific argument against was...... ?

The RRs are informal, best practice guidance is there a solid legal reason thats states should be applied.... ?

They used Fact #2 - Risk to the Exchequer. The risk in 1987 was the risk to a loss from the Exchequer. In 2008 the "risk" used to justify not applying the Rees-rules had nothing to do with any losses it was the risk of not getting a windfall for the Exchequer. Slap on a dash of agressive and abusive and hope it sticks. Yet in 1987 such a windfall for the taxpayer was considered unthinkable, yet 20 years later is seems to be fine and dandy for the taxman. And all via a clarification.

I'm not best pleased by all of this since in 1987 Parliament actually made a point of how moving the goal posts after a goal had been scored as one way to apply retrospection and Parliament would not stand for that (they actually used this analogy). Well BN66 uprooted the freakin sticks after 3000+ goals had been scored turned them into rugby posts, stuck them in a different stadium and said "you missed! 200M penalties to us". If Parliament would not stand for it then, why should they do so now. I think it's called legal certainty.

[ASB]

Regardless, even if HMRC think they can apply tax restrospectively to something that was 100% legal at the time.

I'm not affected by this, I don't particularly disprove of closing it down from the date of the announcement - but certainly the backdating nature is intolerable.

But was it 100% legal at the time? Does anybody really know, I don't think there was ever any precedent set to actually establish this. Certainly TB63 bodes well, in that it certainly seems to cast strong doubt on HMRC ability to challenge. Equally the original judgement did not accept HMRC assertion that it had always failed.

The problem now is that no one will ever know. The fact is the rules have been retrospectively changed. I do find this abhorrent - not just the retrospective nature but the way it came about.

HMRC intended to bring test cases. They stalled looking for agreement from affected taxpayers to be bound by this. Then a few years later they change the rules. This smack of a con. If anybody had gone to tribunal the rules would have been established. It would have succeeded or failed.

Ultimately HMRC have removed the one legal avenue people had to challenge and sort it out. That is absolutely contemptuous. I think the word is entrapment.

The landscape has changed now. "Tax dodgers" is a constantly moving target; of anybody doing "something we don't like with their affairs". All legal certainty, an important doctrine, has now been removed.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens with stamp duty in the budget. After all they are not even looking at replacing the arguably lost revenue. Our prime minister has I beleive used the words "punitive tax charge".

So, they are not looking to right any perceived wrongs anymore. They are looking to punish people, going forwards (and possibly backwards who knows) for doing something plainly within legal framework at the time of action. And also no doubt leaving no ability for people to regularise their affairs into the revised framework.

They continue to get ever more agressive.

[seadog]

They used Fact #2 - Risk to the Exchequer. The risk in 1987 was the risk to a loss from the Exchequer. In 2008 the "risk" used to justify not applying the Rees-rules had nothing to do with any losses it was the risk of not getting a windfall for the Exchequer. Slap on a dash of agressive and abusive and hope it sticks. Yet in 1987 such a windfall for the taxpayer was considered unthinkable, yet 20 years later is seems to be fine and dandy for the taxman. And all via a clarification.

I'm not best pleased by all of this since in 1987 Parliament actually made a point of how moving the goal posts after a goal had been scored as one way to apply retrospection and Parliament would not stand for that (they actually used this analogy). Well BN66 uprooted the freakin sticks after 3000+ goals had been scored turned them into rugby posts, stuck them in a different stadium and said "you missed! 200M penalties to us". If Parliament would not stand for it then, why should they do so now. I think it's called legal certainty.

Its not just the Rees Rules that HMRC cocked a finger at

What about their own protocol of only introducing retrospective legislation from the date they make an announcement of their intention to legislate, ie 12th March 2008 when BN66 was announced.

It strikes me this is a little like the MP's expenses and the current phone hacking debacles. The more you dig the murkier it gets.

The sooner we get an Ombudsmans enquiry into the whole sordid affair of HMRC's conduct the sooner we will see what has really been going on behind those Whitehall Ivory Towers.

[swede]

Ombudsmans

Is there one?

[Buzby]

Meeting arranged with local MP

There is a BIG difference between writing to your MP and actually seeing them - trust me. Keep it simple and stay to the facts. ...

Emailed local MP this morning through WriteToThem - Email or fax your Councillor, MP, MEP, MSP or Welsh, NI, London Assembly Member for free and just got an email back with a meeting for Friday this week - impressed. Now I need to prepare.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Is there one?

Oh yes. Very much so. You gotta have someone who can look at the materials behind all the failed FoI requests. Keeps the world honest.