BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[PlaneSailing]

GAAR

Huitson gets a mention in here on page 15. No mention
of retrospection or institutional inactivity.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/gaar...ort_111111.pdf

It does seem that quoting out of context is acceptable.

Interesting bit on something called SHIPS2. Looks like
an arrangement involving selliing on life insurance
that was deemed legal. Hector, if you're reading, why didn't
you put some certainty around that by legislating
against it with retrospective effect? Only fair in a
civilised society ?

[ringodingo]

George Osborne

George Osborne has just stated on the radio 4 today program that he is NOT a 50p tax payer

[OldITGit]

Obviously

It has not went to the ECHR - which MP was it?

It must be a Labour MP..................which party bludgeoned BN66 thru Parliament? and as you say it should read "and the case is going before ECHR" When it was before JCHR didn't Timms (Labour) sidestep the issue and refuse to respond.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

SHIPS 2

Interesting bit on something called SHIPS2. Looks like
an arrangement involving selliing on life insurance
that was deemed legal. Hector, if you're reading, why didn't
you put some certainty around that by legislating
against it with retrospective effect? Only fair in a
civilised society ?

I don't think I will EVER understand how LJ Mummery managed to uphold SHIPS 2, but dismiss the Huitson Appeal.

[Emigre]

I don't think I will EVER understand how LJ Mummery managed to uphold SHIPS 2, but dismiss the Huitson Appeal.

It seems that the SHIPS 2 scheme relied upon tax law that itself did not allow for purposive interpretation. In other words there was no room for the Judiciary to stretch the intended meaning of the rule book in such a way that they could find in favour of HMRC.

Unfortunately, our case, to date, was fought on the grounds of HR, itself the most subjective area of law. It seems bizarre to me that Abu Qatada appears to have more rights than we do. I mean being allowed to stay on the basis of what might happen?

On that basis, shouldn't everyone pay 50% tax now in case the Govt changes its mind on tax rates in the future?

[PlaneSailing]

I don't think I will EVER understand how LJ Mummery managed to uphold SHIPS 2, but dismiss the Huitson Appeal.

Because he was asked to rule on whether retrospection was
reasonable. It would appear that this has given him the
route to give a judgement that gives the outcome he
wanted, i.e. pay up.

SHIPS2 came through the usual channels. So no
retrospection and no change of tribunal tactics. So
Hector needs to give me an answer as to why there
is favourable treatment.

[Dulakipper]

It must be a Labour MP..................which party bludgeoned BN66 thru Parliament? and as you say it should read "and the case is going before ECHR" When it was before JCHR didn't Timms (Labour) sidestep the issue and refuse to respond.

This is nothing new is it, we keep getting fobbed off by those that either won't look at the detail or refuse to be drawn

We have no clout, no teeth

Lobbying has got to be the way to go, we need someone with a clear strategy built from experience who knows the right people and processes for getting this moving

We have nothing to lose, the damage is already done

[Emigre]

More help needed

This thread has maybe 25 regular posters and a further 100 or so irregular posters. In addition, there appear to be maybe 500+ lurkers. The highest number of peeps online was on the day of one our Court decisions so I think we can assume that most were affected. The response to the JCHR totalled about 250.

We are told that there were 3,000 users of the scheme of which 1300 - 1500 were MontP, and 300 through Steed. I also heard that TwentyPlus were involved, is that right? If so, how many people?

Did E-Cover sell this scheme?
How about Sanazar?
DarwinPay?
Norla?

What other promoters were there? All will become clear later but this information may be extremely valuable to us.

[ir35amnesia]

We are told that there were 3,000 users of the scheme of which 1300 - 1500 were MontP, and 300 through Steed. I also heard that TwentyPlus were involved, is that right? If so, how many people?

Mr Gittins said in Court that Montp had 2500 clients use the scheme. The following is an exact quote:
"in the six years that we ran the scheme we never at any time, with 2,500 consultants, had a single attack from HMRC under Section ..."

[seadog]

On that basis, shouldn't everyone pay 50% tax now in case the Govt changes its mind on tax rates in the future?

You mean retrospectivley clarify the tax rate.

You made me smile this morning, I really like that idea.