BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Playing devils advocate

Why would the Government even contemplate reversing BN66.

One High Court judge and three Lord Justices have said it's all fine and dandy.

They would face a huge backlash, from all and sundry, by letting us off the hook and forfeiting £300M in tax.

So, what's in it for the Government?

[smalldog]

Why would the Government even contemplate reversing BN66.

One High Court judge and three Lord Justices have said it's all fine and dandy.

They would face a huge backlash, from all and sundry, by letting us off the hook and forfeiting £300M in tax.
So, what's in it for the Government?

DR the latest judgement talks of £100m, where did u get £300m from?

I will write to my MP, if nothing else I want someone in government to realise we know they have changed the rules recently and that its another potential weapon in our arsenal that we could use at some point if required.

DR with reference to your other point the LJ's have said its compatible with HR thats all, Im saying there is potentially a new avenue to explore on the basis of the new unplanned tax change ruling.

Nobody has been asked yet about the potential impact on an open case, not the MP's, Government, LJ's etc so its not a foregone conclusion. Im saying is now the time to prod and see if we get a reaction?

I really dont see how something that was initially a clarification, that has now been confirmed as a retrospection, that is so unsavoury even to the latest government that they have put process in place to ensure it never happens again can be allowed to stand without at least some form of questioning.

This latest government have previously said "let the courts decide", but have then taken action on their own account to stop this happening again, so is it the courts or the government, at the moment they are playing both hands!!!!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

DR the latest judgement talks of £100m, where did u get £300m from?

I will write to my MP, if nothing else I want someone in government to realise we know they have changed the rules recently and that its another potential weapon in our arsenal that we could use at some point if required.

DR with reference to your other point the LJ's have said its compatible with HR thats all, Im saying there is potentially a new avenue to explore on the basis of the new unplanned tax change ruling.

Nobody has been asked yet about the potential impact on an open case, not the MP's, Government, LJ's etc so its not a foregone conclusion. Im saying is now the time to prod and see if we get a reaction?

I really dont see how something that was initially a clarification, that has now been confirmed as a retrospection, that is so unsavoury even to the latest government that they have put process in place to ensure it never happens again can be allowed to stand without at least some form of questioning.

This latest government have previously said "let the courts decide", but have then taken action on their own account to stop this happening again, so is it the courts or the government, at the moment they are playing both hands!!!!

The £100M was an estimate given by HMRC in the Huitson appeal for the Montpelier scheme. There was also deGraaf, Steed and of course some big property developers.

There is definitely no harm in writing. It doesn't even cost you a stamp if you email it using WriteToThem - Email or fax your Councillor, MP, MEP, MSP or Welsh, NI, London Assembly Member for free

I take my hat off to you for doing something.

I might write, and there is only one question I would want to ask intitially.

Would section 58 still be possible under the Protocol, on unscheduled announcements of changes in tax law, announced in the recent budget?

Unless the answer is a definitive NO then no-one should take comfort from this Protocol.

[smalldog]

The £100M was an estimate given by HMRC in the Huitson appeal for the Montpelier scheme. There was also deGraaf, Steed and of course some big property developers.

There is definitely no harm in writing. It doesn't even cost you a stamp if you email it using WriteToThem - Email or fax your Councillor, MP, MEP, MSP or Welsh, NI, London Assembly Member for free

I take my hat off to you for doing something.

I might write, and there is only one question I would want to ask intitially.



Unless the answer is a definitive NO then no-one should take comfort from this Protocol.

DR, agree completely, thats the only question that matters and if any of the MP's have the balls to ask it in the commons I'd love to hear the reasoning....hence me wanting to write.

[Fireship]

The £100M was an estimate given by HMRC in the Huitson appeal for the Montpelier scheme. There was also deGraaf, Steed and of course some big property developers.

There is definitely no harm in writing. It doesn't even cost you a stamp if you email it using WriteToThem - Email or fax your Councillor, MP, MEP, MSP or Welsh, NI, London Assembly Member for free

I take my hat off to you for doing something.

I might write, and there is only one question I would want to ask intitially.



Unless the answer is a definitive NO then no-one should take comfort from this Protocol.

Agreed, however before someone jumps the gun and asks that question I think we should reword it to focus on the letter of law as was and ones ability (or lack thereof) to read any other meaning into it! Otherwise it’s very easy to say “yes, of course it’s possible!”

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Agreed, however before someone jumps the gun and asks that question I think we should reword it to focus on the letter of law as was and ones ability (or lack thereof) to read any other meaning into it! Otherwise it’s very easy to say “yes, of course it’s possible!”

BN66 is without doubt the most exceptional and extreme case of retrospective tax that there has ever been.

If BN66 would have been possible under the Protocol, then that says a lot about the Protocol !!!

The Protocol is totally worthless if they can't even answer the question definitively Yes or No.

[OnYourBikeGB]

I'm sure Mr Assange would be interested in our dossier...?!

Not so much a dodgy dossier and as dodger dossier

[OnYourBikeGB]

I know I said I'd be quiet, but ...

A few things from today, I think some of us are up for a fight. Emigre mentioned strategy, and DR raised the very valid question what's in it for the Government. I think these are two very important points that we must incorporate into any approach we take.

DR's point first. This is a real tricky one, because we have to persuade them we are not trying to escape the law, because they cannot and will not let us do this. This is vital in my opinion, we have to give them a way out. I suggest that we stress this strongly and we make very clear that we are willing to go to court / tribunals on the terms suggested by HMRC before they pulled their about face. In other words, they can still win, and if HMRC lose, then it's because of bad law from previous administrations, i.e. they, the politicians, did not let us off. Remember, HMRC have always said that this is clarification, their argument being that it was there already, they are therefore just emphasizing it. Fine, prove it.

Is it possible that BN66 can be allowed to stand, but not applied and we proceed direct to the tribunals?

I still believe that we should softly but firmly point out the loss to the Exchequer from the actions of companies associated with MPs. Not as a threat, but because we have to prove that they could just as easily have had a finger pointed at them, damned by association, if retrospection was applied. In the wake of the expenses scandal, I would like to think that would cause a squirm, especially where the associations still exist. We have to show that there is a hypocrisy in how we have been treated. We have to raise a question mark over why retrospection is no longer possible while leaving us being fed to the lions. We must show that these corporations have been protected by the Governments actions, while at the same time, they attacked us. We must cause them to pause and think and not to just dismiss us.

I believe the campaign should be personalised. We should deliver our letters by hand wherever possible, at MPs surgeries. We have to make a bond because it's more difficult to tell someone that you have the power to help and to give that person, their partner and their children a chance, and then refuse to do it when they are looking into our eyes. We cannot be aggressive, we cannot be arrogant. We must ask as one individual to another for their help in allowing us a fair fight.

We've been beaten up and pushed around, but I'm ready to take another swing.

[reckless]

Change of tack and second front

The last few days have presented some very interesting points and thoughts by forum contributors, and it is good to see some clever minds working constructively following on from some of the pessimism and bickering last week. I would like to think that MP's legal team are now considering some of these more recent developments and observations, specifically;

The wording by the COA LJ that BN66 was an AMENDMENT.
The opening comment by the COA LJ that this was a most UNUSUAL case.
The existence of the HMRC Protocol on Tax Avoidance and the implementation of tax changes.
The discrimination against our group in that never before, nor (as the Protocol states) never again can the goal posts be moved in the way that they have been for BN66.
The further discrimination in the difference in treatment between the 'small people' and big business.

The circular argument regarding the will of parliament (is it fairness or no retrospection?) is also note worthy. I do feel that our legal argument needs to be widened, as I don't think that having 'one last push' on the Human Rights front alone will yield the necessary result.

I also feel that some concerted action in writing to MPs (and also ministers who were so against retrospective legislation whilst in opposition) is necessary, with no holding back on the likely financial, domestic and possible mental consequences of imposing BN66 on such a large group. The idea of 'moving the goal posts back to where they were and resuming the game' is a good one in that it leaves the government with a way out.

The fight must go on.

[centurian]

I reckon go for it - but be under no illusions about the chances.

You have to convince half of 650 MP's to vote for an Act of Parliament to "give" £300M to relatively rich people, while cuts are being made to services for the poor. Argue it whichever way you want - that is how it will be spun.

Given that Danny Alexander firmly squashed any plan to remove the 50% tax rate, which many argue costs revenue, I just cannot see how it is possible to get any kind of movement in this.

The major problem is that the political heat they will get from repealing BN66 will be several orders of magnitude higher than the heat they will get from all the other points raised.

Put simply, you're not holding a strong enough hand - but, maybe you can luck out and bluff enough of them to get some momentum.