BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[DonkeyRhubarb]

...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.

I feel exactly the same.

But I just know in my gut we would be banging our heads against a brick wall trying to turn the Government.

Whatever we do the response will be the same broken record "it's for the courts to decide".

[bombaycat]

Agreed, that's a very good point!!!

They want to only apply it to us because if they actually applied it to everyone who has ever used legal tax planning slightly more innovative than buying an ISA there would be widespread outcry and suddenly a lot more people would realise that they are deemed as "tax dodging scum" by the gutter media....then they might sit up and look at the facts as of course then it wouldn't be "fair". Easy to be smug when the loaded gun isn't pointed at your head, the whole thing sickens me to be honest.

It's just another form of nimby stuff where people want everything their own way but want everyone else treated less fairly.

yawn.....same old same old.....

[OnYourBikeGB]

I feel exactly the same.

But I just know in my gut we would be banging our heads against a brick wall trying to turn the Government.

Whatever we do the response will be the same broken record "it's for the courts to decide".

Ok, my final pitch and then I'll be quiet.

A couple of points. First of all, one of the reasons the Government do not want to be seen to do is back tax avoiders. But did anyone notice how little of a splash we made at CoA? Granted, there was many more terrible issues than ours going on with the tragedies in Norway, but were we even a footnote on the BBC? I don't think we were. In other words, no-one noticed us. This could be stopped without political consequences if the will was there.

Secondly, on the point of the Government, perhaps we should stop viewing them and Parliament as one big faceless block, and instead as individuals. These individuals must list their business interests. One does not have to look too far to find public knowledge of tax avoidance by many of these companies. Let's take as an example, our good friend Vince Cable and his previous association with Royal Dutch Shell. I am in no way implying by the way that Vince Cable is or was in anyway associated with tax avoidance during his tenure as their senior economic advisor. However, if I go to Google and type in Royal Dutch Shell and tax avoidance, well, I do get quite a lot of hits. I think I have a right to ask why have I been singled out for retrospective punitive taxation and the company that he was once associated with was not, if the many allegations are true, and given his and all the other MPs failing to help us, I think I have a right to ask it directly of them. I think I also have the right to ask why the Government has now changed the rules, so that these companies never can be retrospectively taxed once the precedent was set by hanging us out to dry (cheeky perhaps, but nonetheless a fact). The same could be true of many other companies that are associated with MPs in the past as well as the present. Once again, I am not implying in any way that any of them would have any knowledge of any tax avoidance, but the questions remain, why us and why only us?

It would be an interesting exercise to collate this information, to print it out and present it to our MPs personally, not imply in any way any wrongdoing on their part, but to ask why are we so different, why can this not be stopped? We are not looking for special treatment, quite the opposite, we are looking for the same treatment as everyone else. We have a right to know what makes us, small business people of no great significance, so special we deserved to be treated like this.

[Leyther70]

Ok, my final pitch and then I'll be quiet.

A couple of points. First of all, one of the reasons the Government do not want to be seen to do is back tax avoiders. But did anyone notice how little of a splash we made at CoA? Granted, there was many more terrible issues than ours going on with the tragedies in Norway, but were we even a footnote on the BBC? I don't think we were. In other words, no-one noticed us. This could be stopped without political consequences if the will was there.

Secondly, on the point of the Government, perhaps we should stop viewing them and Parliament as one big faceless block, and instead as individuals. These individuals must list their business interests. One does not have to look too far to find public knowledge of tax avoidance by many of these companies. Let's take as an example, our good friend Vince Cable and his previous association with Royal Dutch Shell. I am in no way implying by the way that Vince Cable is or was in anyway associated with tax avoidance during his tenure as their senior economic advisor. However, if I go to Google and type in Royal Dutch Shell and tax avoidance, well, I do get quite a lot of hits. I think I have a right to ask why have I been singled out for retrospective punitive taxation and the company that he was once associated with was not, if the many allegations are true, and given his and all the other MPs failing to help us, I think I have a right to ask it directly of them. I think I also have the right to ask why the Government has now changed the rules, so that these companies never can be retrospectively taxed once the precedent was set by hanging us out to dry (cheeky perhaps, but nonetheless a fact). The same could be true of many other companies that are associated with MPs in the past as well as the present. Once again, I am not implying in any way that any of them would have any knowledge of any tax avoidance, but the questions remain, why us and why only us?

It would be an interesting exercise to collate this information, to print it out and present it to our MPs personally, not imply in any way any wrongdoing on their part, but to ask why are we so different, why can this not be stopped? We are not looking for special treatment, quite the opposite, we are looking for the same treatment as everyone else. We have a right to know what makes us, small business people of no great significance, so special we deserved to be treated like this.

Very well put and I agree 100%.

Its the same old story! These schems are ok when used by those in power but as soon as the man on the street gets involved then its no longer acceptable.

Stinks but then it always has, politicians are just gangsters going by a different name!

[Cantthinkof1]

My thoughts EXACTLY !!!

They want to only apply it to us because if they actually applied it to everyone who has ever used legal tax planning slightly more innovative than buying an ISA there would be widespread outcry and suddenly a lot more people would realise that they are deemed as "tax dodging scum" by the gutter media....then they might sit up and look at the facts as of course then it wouldn't be "fair". Easy to be smug when the loaded gun isn't pointed at your head, the whole thing sickens me to be honest.

It's just another form of nimby stuff where people want everything their own way but want everyone else treated less fairly.

yawn.....same old same old.....

Very well said - my thoughts exactly!!!

[Cantthinkof1]

Well said...

Ok, my final pitch and then I'll be quiet.

A couple of points. First of all, one of the reasons the Government do not want to be seen to do is back tax avoiders. But did anyone notice how little of a splash we made at CoA? Granted, there was many more terrible issues than ours going on with the tragedies in Norway, but were we even a footnote on the BBC? I don't think we were. In other words, no-one noticed us. This could be stopped without political consequences if the will was there.

Secondly, on the point of the Government, perhaps we should stop viewing them and Parliament as one big faceless block, and instead as individuals. These individuals must list their business interests. One does not have to look too far to find public knowledge of tax avoidance by many of these companies. Let's take as an example, our good friend Vince Cable and his previous association with Royal Dutch Shell. I am in no way implying by the way that Vince Cable is or was in anyway associated with tax avoidance during his tenure as their senior economic advisor. However, if I go to Google and type in Royal Dutch Shell and tax avoidance, well, I do get quite a lot of hits. I think I have a right to ask why have I been singled out for retrospective punitive taxation and the company that he was once associated with was not, if the many allegations are true, and given his and all the other MPs failing to help us, I think I have a right to ask it directly of them. I think I also have the right to ask why the Government has now changed the rules, so that these companies never can be retrospectively taxed once the precedent was set by hanging us out to dry (cheeky perhaps, but nonetheless a fact). The same could be true of many other companies that are associated with MPs in the past as well as the present. Once again, I am not implying in any way that any of them would have any knowledge of any tax avoidance, but the questions remain, why us and why only us?

It would be an interesting exercise to collate this information, to print it out and present it to our MPs personally, not imply in any way any wrongdoing on their part, but to ask why are we so different, why can this not be stopped? We are not looking for special treatment, quite the opposite, we are looking for the same treatment as everyone else. We have a right to know what makes us, small business people of no great significance, so special we deserved to be treated like this.

OnYourBikeGB, very well said!! - the total unfairness in the way we have all been treated is gobsmacking! - to say the least....

[seadog]

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.

One significant point this does show is that "Public Policy" is against retrospective legislation which was one of the key arguments in the CoA judgement.

[smalldog]

DR need your help

DR, there seems to be quite a lot of people saying we should at leadt try to hit this from another angle, me included since the introduction of the unchanged tax changes.

Im thinking it cant hurt to get MP to construct a suitably worded summary each of us can send to our MP's but not along the HR lines.

Without meaning to use you as a middle man do you think that is something MP could produce that we can send on, it cant do any harm...?

I personally feel its worth a try..

[nevergiveup]

DR, there seems to be quite a lot of people saying we should at leadt try to hit this from another angle, me included since the introduction of the unchanged tax changes.

Im thinking it cant hurt to get MP to construct a suitably worded summary each of us can send to our MP's but not along the HR lines.

Without meaning to use you as a middle man do you think that is something MP could produce that we can send on, it cant do any harm...?

I personally feel its worth a try..

Couldn't hurt to bombard our MP's. Maybe if we write a letter a week someone will listen (well it worked in The Shawshank Redemption )

[ALMAC]

"tackling tax avoidance" document

Surely this document is a very clear admission that what HMRC has done is completely wrong.

Or perhaps they could explain why our case was "wholly exceptional" against other instances of legislation change that were prospective.

Surely MP should be approaching this angle or at least explaining to us why not.

I think I am right in saying that it has already been established that BN66 is a legislation change or amendment therefore continuation of this case against us flies in the wind of what this new document is about!

Or have I got it wrong?