BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Drat ! Foiled at last ! That's right, I've made a point you don't like so I must be a spy.

Carry on nudging HMRC into a legislative cap and see where it gets you.

MP's lawyers need something novel to win, maybe you can tell them your constutional analysis.

Wow! Hold one a mo. I just asked if you worked in Shipley. I didn't say I didn't like your point. In fact I said the opposite. Take it as a compliment. Can't see why you'd get all touchy.

So you caught up in all of this?

[northernSoul]

Wow! Hold one a mo. I just asked if you worked in Shipley. I didn't say I didn't like your point. In fact I said the opposite. Take it as a compliment. Can't see why you'd get all touchy.

So you caught up in all of this?

Have a chum who's involved in it all.

[smalldog]

Northen Soul, parliament rubber stamped it, HMRC came up with the concept and sold it to the government that was in power at the time but unfortunately for them misled the government. Which as has already been said is another angle to potentially explore.

Lets explore "fair" now, if the government or HMRC are going to adopt an approach towards being "fair" they need and must be consistent.

This one is aimed squarely at HMRC and not the government, when Mr Hartnett let off Vodafone how is that fair to the tax paying public?

Is Mr Hartnett now going to suggest to parliament that they make a retro legislative change to catch google after them paying a pitiful amount of CT due to their Irish arrangement, or is that all a bit too scary? and those two are only the tip of the iceberg...

So are Vodafone or Google being fair, should everyone boycott google?? Are HMRC being fair in not pursuing them and in Vodafones case actually letting them off?

its all double standards and thats what sticks in my throat the most.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Have a chum who's involved in it all.

You've made some good observations and I'm not one to rubbish any opinion just because I don't like it. I suppose it's one facet of this Forum that trying to argue down opinions for or against might lead to a more informed or educated understanding of what options are available or not. So what's your take on MacDougall's witness testimony in terms of his opinions?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Have a chum who's involved in it all.

At first I didn't remember you, so I just re-read your previous posts. You first popped up after we lost in the High Court and then disappeared for 18 months. Now you are back again. Interesting.

However, I digress, so what are you advising your chum to do?

[normalbloke]

....There have to be rules : and the main rule in the UK is, only the EU and UK parliament pass laws. End of. There is no other interpretation possible. Law is all about rules. Computer people understand rules. You can't get a 'for loop' to behave a different way from week to week. They always behave the same way. That's how computers work. And legal systems are the same : its the rules that count. HMRC can't be constutionally different from week to the next.

I totally agree. And TSBT has told you the rules changed in 2008 and the for loop behaves differently now. But you haven't answered. That is the whole crux of our argument here. We abided by the rules as they were...no court has proved otherwise, because HMRC didn't let it. So instead, HMRC prepared the case for the rules to be changed...didn't tell the Minister responsible the whole story, which therefore misled Parliament and BN66 was voted thorough on committee majority. They may not give Royal Assent but they do heavily influence, and give input to the framework and nature of legislative drafting .

[normalbloke]

Really?

Try telling the courts that HMRC passed the law - you'll get nowhere with that one! The fact that they had input is neither here nor there. The moment the queen's moniker hit the papyrus, HMRC, and it's role in it, is of monumental irrelevance.

.

Really? Even it can be proved they misled a Government Minister responsible for the legislative 'change'?

So if someone (maybe or maybe not HMRC - I'm talking generally here) lies and produces incorrect facts and statistics in the process of drawing up legislation and these lies are used as a cornerstone of that legislation, then as soon as Royal Assent is given it would then be 'monumentally irrelevant' that they lied and cheated?

Hmm....

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

I totally agree. And TSBT has told you the rules changed in 2008 and the for loop behaves differently now. But you haven't answered. That is the whole crux of our argument here. We abided by the rules as they were...no court has proved otherwise, because HMRC didn't let it. So instead, HMRC prepared the case for the rules to be changed...didn't tell the Minister responsible the whole story, which therefore misled Parliament and BN66 was voted thorough on committee majority. They may not give Royal Assent but they do heavily influence, and give input to the framework and nature of legislative drafting .

OK, found the program code in question.

AFFECTED_THEN=15,000
AFFECTED_NOW=2,500
IF (date == 1987)
THEN
RETROSPECTION_MEANT = "No tax windfall to $AFFECTED_THEN known PARTNERS"
RETROSPECTION_RESULT != "Any taxation demands"
ECHO $RETROSPECTION_MEANT > /dev/tty/PUBLIC
ECHO $RETROSPECTION_RESULT > /dev/tty/PUBLIC
ELIF (date != 1987)
THEN
PARTNERS = "Anybody and everybody"
FI
FOR I IN ( COUNT NUM $AFFECTED_NOW)
DO
GREP $I $RETROSPECTION_MEANT
IF $0 = 0
THEN
RETROSPECTION_RESULT = "$PARTNERS Pay tax for the last 6 years"
ECHO $RETROSPECTION_RESULT > /dev/tty/PUBLIC
ECHO $RETROSPECTION_MEANT > /dev/null
FI
DONE

So you see, the code is fine. It's just that the value of the "variable" RETROSPECTION_RESULT has changed but RETROSPECTIVE_MEANT has not. But the code does not "echo" that unchanged variable. But if the code is the same as it was when "written" in 1987, how would they have been able to put the "IF" condition into it. I've checked and they didn't. So the code above was actually written in 2008 which is why it looks fine but is not the same as that written in 1987. So it most certainly has been changed not clarified.

And as the code shows, we've most certainly been DONE

Drat! Forgot the most important first line of this shell script:
#!/bin/bash
Or literally have "bin slashed, bashed"! Kinda how we feel really.

OK, getting a little UNIX nerdy now so I'll stop

[DonkeyRhubarb]

HMRC conceived and drafted s58. There are FOI responses to prove this.

HMRC may not be responsible in the sense that they don't enact legislation but they were the instigators.

Somewhere along the line between HMRC, Treasury officials, Ministers and the Finance Bill Committee a deception was played out.

s58 was presented as a clarification of s62 F(no2)A 1987. The use of retrospective legislation was justified on the basis that s62 had also been retrospective.

Most people seem to accept this at face value. "Oh well, if s62 was retrospective then that's fine then."

But was s62 retrospective, or was this just made up by HMRC?

I think you know the answer.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

But was s62 retrospective, or was this just made up by HMRC?

I think you know the answer.

DR,

A1P1 requires that careful scrutiny is needed when applying measures such as this. Letters from Timms to the JCHR state the need to perform what is in essence Due Diligence. I cannot find anything where a Government or Parliament had thought that retrospective taxation should be treated lightly but rather careful consideration is needed before it is chosen.

Yes we know the answer. And it does not include words or phrases like the above. The Kings new clothes comes to mind. Or in this case, the Governments new legislation.