• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
    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.
    If they feel so strongly about it why can't they make this new protocol retrospective??

    Comment


      Originally posted by Fireship View Post
      If they feel so strongly about it why can't they make this new protocol retrospective??
      Surely it's discriminatory too, to single us out for retrospective taxation and make sure it doesn't happen to anyone else?
      'Orwell's 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual'. -
      Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch.

      Comment


        Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
        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.
        If that is the case, can anyone recommend a good scheme? I'm more than happy to keep switching between them and build up some reserves for BN66!

        Comment


          Originally posted by ContractIn View Post
          If that is the case, can anyone recommend a good scheme? I'm more than happy to keep switching between them and build up some reserves for BN66!
          From what I understand, the best scheme requires you to become a politician, preferably Prime Minister.
          I think this scheme involves off the shelf and offshore companies as well as trust partnerships that do not require discolure.

          Comment


            Originally posted by SantaClaus View Post
            Surely it's discriminatory too, to single us out for retrospective taxation and make sure it doesn't happen to anyone else?
            Also, if the courts are willing to accept HMRC’s “will of parliament” argument then surely we can argue the same? According to this protocol it’s clear parliament think our situation should’ve have been allowed to happen and it’s clear they wish to prevent it from happening to anyone else!!

            Comment


              err I dont get this, if the government have introduced a new measure to prevent BN66 happening in the future then why cant we be swept up in that rule and stop all this nonsense?

              Introducing this measure basically admits the BN66 legislation is wrong and is an unplanned change, so how on earth can they argue otherwise regardless of so called morals??

              That surely must be put forwards at the SC rather than whittering on about HR....

              Its quite simple, parliament was misled, it was not a clarification it was retrospection and the HC has ruled as such, it should never have been allowed to stand and the latest government even admit this by preventing it happening in future. case closed...
              Last edited by smalldog; 1 August 2011, 12:20.

              Comment


                Unfortunately, Governments very rarely revisit the past when they introduce new measures.

                There is generally no restitution for people previously convicted of an offence which has subsequently been decriminalised.

                Eg. homosexuality

                It's called progress. You are meant to take comfort from the fact that no-one else will be punished for it again in future.

                As an aside, I suspect if Labour got in again they would tear up the new protocol, especially if the courts allow BN66 to stand setting a precendent for retrospective taxes.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
                  Unfortunately, Governments very rarely revisit the past when they introduce new measures.

                  There is generally no restitution for people previously convicted of an offence which has subsequently been decriminalised.

                  Eg. homosexuality

                  It's called progress. You are meant to take comfort from the fact that no-one else will be punished for it again in future.

                  As an aside, I suspect if Labour got in again they would tear up the new protocol, especially if the courts allow BN66 to stand setting a precendent for retrospective taxes.
                  but what about when there is an open case still in play, I understand going back over closed cases isnt practical but this isnt over yet.

                  I understand your point but using homosexuality as an example, if the government all of a sudden decided homosexuality were to be made legal after being illegal and there were cases going through the courts of people being prosecuted as it was illegal at the time Im not convinced they would continue with prosecutions.

                  Plenty of people have thrown moral arguments around against us, surely we have a moral argument in this case if nothing else. Or do morals only apply to others and not us
                  Last edited by smalldog; 1 August 2011, 13:41.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by smalldog View Post
                    but what about when there is an open case still in play, I understand going back over closed cases isnt practical but this isnt over yet.

                    I understand your point but using homosexuality as an example, if the government all of a sudden decided homosexuality were to be made legal after being illegal and there were cases going through the courts of people being prosecuted as it was illegal at the time Im not convinced they would continue with prosecutions.

                    Plenty of people have thrown moral arguments around against us, surely we have a moral argument in this case if nothing else. Or do morals only apply to others and not us
                    Is it worth putting a dossier together of major companies who are known to use tax avoidance - a hunt through the likes of Private Eye and a bit of research might be all that is needed. We are all professionals. We are all resourceful Collating the information and their methods, while detailing the personal impacts this is having as we did before on the HR angle and then sending it to all MPs with the simple question - Why only us? We demand to know.

                    And if they won't listen, we send it to anyone who will. I accept that 95% will think we had it coming, but I also think that they same amount of people will think it should be applied to all. The one thing I have noticed, even amongst those people who thought we were taking the proverbial, is that they all could not believe that the law could not be changed retrospectively. Is it worth trying to turn it so that it is not so much a question about whether we had it coming, as a potentially more politically embarrassing one about why we have it coming and yet the banks and major news corporations etc do not?

                    Maybe it would be pointless, I don't know, but I just feel like a passenger on the cart to the guillotine at the moment. I want to jump the guards and try to steal the horses.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by smalldog View Post
                      but what about when there is an open case still in play, I understand going back over closed cases isnt practical but this isnt over yet.

                      I understand your point but using homosexuality as an example, if the government all of a sudden decided homosexuality were to be made legal after being illegal and there were cases going through the courts of people being prosecuted as it was illegal at the time Im not convinced they would continue with prosecutions.

                      Plenty of people have thrown moral arguments around against us, surely we have a moral argument in this case if nothing else. Or do morals only apply to others and not us
                      Agreed, that's a very good point!!!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X