BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[OnYourBikeGB]

Fan the flames?

Just a thought, but I have been wondering if we should fan the flames a bit. The result from the COA has made be think that despite apparent strength of our case then we will probably lose. I do not believe that we will beat HMRC on the current battlefield. Is it worth widening the war? Should we now be insisting that if the Government is standing idly by and letting us be fed to the lions that we should demand that if retrospection is being used against us, then perhaps it should also be used against some of their buddies in business? I'm thinking here of course of the many British and international companies (and ex-Prime Ministers) that use artificial tax structures to avoid and artificially lower their tax bills. Surely if tax legislation can be 'clarified' to catch us, then it can be clarified for anyone.

The Government's hypocrisy and leaving us to rot has long been a topic on this forum. Can we force them to make a stand rather than leave it to the courts? How does it look when a Government drives 2500 of it's law abiding citizens into bankruptcy while at the same time wining and dining those company chiefs that barely pay any tax at all. Should we demand the Hector instead of picking on the likes of the pensioners and us starts focusing on some bigger cats - after all, they have proved now they have the legal right to do it. Should we be asking if HMRC and the Governments approach of hammering the pensioners and the little people is more about corruption and cowardice than it is about 'fairness'. Can we force them to answer, and not to hide behind the judiciary?

I don't know if it's a good idea or a bad idea, but we're in a war and hasn't gone well so far because we have had to fight in their system, maybe if people won't join the fight, we should drag them into it. But is it time we started thinking that if we're going down, we're bringing some of the b*stards with us? Thoughts anyone?

[centurian]

Thoughts anyone?

The major problem you have - is that the vast majority of the public will agree with what the government are doing. You are argue about tax avoidance being legal until your grave - it just doesn't wash with the public at large.

It might have worked before the credit crunch hit - but not in the current climate

Unfortunately I feel the only chance you have - is the legal process

[OnYourBikeGB]

The major problem you have - is that the vast majority of the public will agree with what the government are doing. You are argue about tax avoidance being legal until your grave - it just doesn't wash with the public at large.

It might have worked before the credit crunch hit - but not in the current climate

Unfortunately I feel the only chance you have - is the legal process

But that is my point. Yes, the vast majority of the public will think we are wrong. I'm taking a slightly different view. In my opinion, HMRC are a machine. They really don't care about the money, they are simply ticking the boxes. The only way their policy will change is with explicit political pressure to stop it.

The politicians are leaving this to HMRC and the judiciary, they will not intervene, because although some of them may be against the policy, they do not want to be seen to be backing us.

My point is that rather than fighting retrospective legislation, we make it very clear that if it applies to us, then it should apply to the businesses that make donations, have large number of employees in marginal seats etc. that have used tax avoidance. You don't have to look too far for large corporations, trading in the UK that pay little or no tax here. Yet the Government accept this, because they have economic and even political power. These companies could just as easily be caught with 'clarifications'.

Don't get me wrong, I do not want retrospective legislation applied. It is morally wrong. However, the MPs voted this through. If they refuse to intercede on our behalf, to exert political pressure to remove an immoral and unjust piece of legislation, should we threaten to bring home to them just how uncertain the tax system has become, and the potential economic and political impact? We should make sure they understand that if it applies to us, then we and Joe Public expect it to be applied to their pals in business. We make them confront their own monster.

[centurian]

Okay, a slightly different slant, but it's a bit like arguing you shouldn't pay for a speeding ticket - on the basis that other people have been speeding - and didn't get a ticket.

All a politician needs to respond with is, "Fantastic, you agree that retrospective legislation is okay, so now please pay up". We'll certainly look at applying it elsewhere - and then promptly kick it into the long grass.

If you feel you can think of an angle to apply this, then maybe go for it - I just can't see it getting anywhere though.

[Buzby]

ECJ

If the PwC case was referred to the ECJ then definitely YES.

You can't apply directly to the ECJ, it has to be referred by a UK court. The UK case would be parked, pending a decision of the ECJ.

I would be happy with that - if I knew that if everything went wrong but hector had to wait for ECJ before forcing collection it would mean my kids would probably finish school and maybe even have moved out the family home. last time we talk about ECJ I think we said it had a ten years waiting list.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Okay, a slightly different slant, but it's a bit like arguing you shouldn't pay for a speeding ticket - on the basis that other people have been speeding - and didn't get a ticket.

All a politician needs to respond with is, "Fantastic, you agree that retrospective legislation is okay, so now please pay up". We'll certainly look at applying it elsewhere - and then promptly kick it into the long grass.

If you feel you can think of an angle to apply this, then maybe go for it - I just can't see it getting anywhere though.

Well, we wouldn't be saying that! What we would be saying is that if it is being applied at all, why is it being applied to us only? The intention would not be to get retrospective legislation applied to companies, but to make politicians acknowledge that there are double standards, and to do something, i.e intercede - otherwise we highlight it.

Your speeding analogy is an interesting one. All drivers caught by a speed camera are fined if any are fined at all. The police / councils have to, otherwise it's discrimination. Our argument would be exactly that, we're being discriminated against, they know it, we know it, and that we are prepared to highlight that they personally are more concerned with big business than they are with their voters (not that that's news, but that's not what they want the perception to be). Can we make them aware that if we make a big enough noise, then Joe Public will start asking why it has not been applied to these large corporations now that HMRC have the power to do so? That it is better to bring some pressure to bear on our side now to keep it contained.

Agreed though, they could indeed play a slippery game and as you say kick it into the long grass, but not before we make a noise.

[SLB]

If the PwC case was referred to the ECJ then definitely YES.

You can't apply directly to the ECJ, it has to be referred by a UK court. The UK case would be parked, pending a decision of the ECJ.

OK, thanks for that clarification.

[centurian]

But not all speeders are caught - only those that speed in a very tightly defined area (less than a fraction of 1% of the entire public highway).

Sorry, but I just can't see how the argument will work - in fact I think the argument will got torn to pieces. They are simply not going to repeal BN66 on the basis that they can't / don't want to go after others - it will be political suicide for them to do so in the current climate.

The argument will be just like Libya - "just because we can't intervene everywhere doesn't mean we shouldn't intevene when we can"

If anything I think it will just re-enforce their position - "shame their not going after the really big boys, but at least they are nailing some of the effing tax dodgers" will be the response from the public.

But my home isn't at stake, so it's easy for me to postulate. Maybe it's worth a short, but in my opinion, it's an incredibly long one

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Forget the Government

They have made it abundantly clear that it's for the courts to decide on BN66 and under no circumstances will they interfere.

They've also set out a new Protocol on unscheduled tax changes, which would prevent a BN66 type measure happening again in future. See pages 17-20.

http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011bu...xavoidance.pdf

This stops BN66 being seen as a green light to more retrospection and allays the concerns of business, foreign investment etc.

From the Government's point of view, it's just tough luck that we got singled out by the previous administration.

[OnYourBikeGB]

They have made it abundantly clear that it's for the courts to decide on BN66 and under no circumstances will they interfere.

They've also set out a new Protocol on unscheduled tax changes, which would prevent a BN66 type measure happening again in future. See pages 17-20.

http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011bu...xavoidance.pdf

This stops BN66 being seen as a green light to more retrospection and allays the concerns of business, foreign investment etc.

From the Government's point of view, it's just tough luck that we got singled out by the previous administration.

Ah - forgot about that