BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[stuffed]

Retro just mentioned in the budget

Just heard him say that where abuse has been found they will look to introduce retrospective tax on stamp duty.
Looks like retro is an OK word for this govt as well

[slogger]

yep - just said tax cuts to be funded by a clampdown on tax avoidance and a general anti-avoidance tax rule to be introduced..

[RingStinger]

I just listened live to the budget, and I winced at "......I find tax avoidance and tax evasion morally repugnant."

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hi DR

I assume in most instances, scheme users forwarded MontP all communications they recieved from HMRC - I certainly sent all mine on. Based on the contents and dates of these correspondents, could MontP not identify other Scheme users that have this ground for appeal as per the above case ?

There are very few people in this position and it would be a massive undertaking for MP to check everyone.

Rather than putting the burden on MP who may not have copies of all paperwork anyway...

...write to HMRC and request proof that they opened an enquiry into every one of your CNs.

[Emigre]

The problem I have with words like repugnant when directed at tax avoidance is that it leaves nothing to adequately describe those that engage in tax evasion.

Tax evasion allegedly costs the Exchequer three times as much as avoidance. All the evaders ever get is one amnesty after another.

One Government after another seems to have forgotten that avoidance is legal, and evasion illegal.

In the 1936 case (IRC v Duke of Westminster ([1936] 19 TC 490) with regard to the taxation affairs of the then Duke of Westminster Lord Tomlin said "Every man is entitled, if he can, to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be". In doing so he reinforced the 1929 ruling of Lord Clyde in the case Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services & Ritchie v CIR ((1929) 14 TC 754) in which he said "No man in this country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or to his property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel into his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow - and
quite rightly - to take every advantage which is open to it under the taxing statutes for the purpose of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is, in like manner, entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Revenue".

May they rest in peace.

[Morlock]

I think the standard window is 1 year after due date, so due date would have been 31st Jan 2006, so window is open upto 31st Jan 2007. So i think you are just out there, mind you i'm sure they could come up with some excuse to have stretched that out if they wanted to

No. The enquiry window closes on the 1st anniversary of the date you submitted your return: Discrepancy Examinations and Enquiries: Information: Date the Enquiry Window closes - SA taxpayers

[TalkingCheese]

As expected...

... nothing about us but then there wouldnt be. Just makes me realise again what an uphill battle we have with the anti-avoidance retro speak. The big difference, I believe, is that he talks about it for rich people and large companies. I am neither of those. If they retro tax the rich or large companies they are not likely to go bankrupt or leave individuals lives in tatters. Also I am assuming it will be in accordance with the new HMRC protocols and Rees Rules, neither of which were the case for us.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Calm down

Just heard him say that where abuse has been found they will look to introduce retrospective tax on stamp duty.
Looks like retro is an OK word for this govt as well

He had been talking about multi-millionaires avoiding tax when he referred to aggressive tax avoidance as "morally abhorrent".

But he also followed that by saying he had stated his intention many times already and that today he was giving a clear signal of Parliaments intent to act and if not heeded would do so without further warning and in needed, retrospectively.

What he was saying was that he has today given a clear signal after many warnings and if you carry on in the future you'd be hit with retrospection. Note he didn't say how far back. Yet the words are that of the Rees-Rules. Retro back to the date of announcement. That is what the Tories argued for in BN66. That is all we expect. His comments are in line with what we want:

Rees-Rules applied
Retro back to date of announcement

But HMRC played the card of announcement was 1987. For the reasons already stated and being presented en-mass to the TSC and others, that is simply not true. So in summary:

Aggressive tax avoidance will be subject to retrospection if needed, and from the date of announcement which is today and therefore adhering to the Rees-Rules.

I see no problem with that message at all. After all if that had been the message in 2008 I would not be typing this. And hey, how many folks watching that on TV have even heard of the Rees-Rules? They'd love what they heard but not have a clue about what it actually does. That's what spending 3 years investigating this does to you. You become an armchair MP or Dr with MP emailing your MP and sending a PM on here to other MP's or DR's.

[bananarepublic]

ignore ....

[Slobbo]

Seems strange that attitude when the government runs their own tax avoidance schemes. Namely National Savings Bonds.