BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

I havent' seen this forum in a while but I see there is still some confusion over HMRCs constitutional position.

HMRC :-
i) is not a legislator. It did not change the law. Parliament did, the principle legilsative forum of the British people.

Just re-read what you said. Of course you are quite right. But that confounds me. It was only a clarification and hence why Parliament stated that it was "as always having had affect". That phrase is in Statute as a result of BN66.

Excellent for identifying and confirming this point which has been made elsewhere before. I agree HMRC didn't change the law they cannot. But I'm sure that they provided Parliament with the advice to allow the latter to do so even though it was only a clarification.

Could drive you mad this. Almost akin to "if I went back in time before I was born and killed my father...". Coming to think of it, that's exactly what happened with BN66 - that is to produce a totally impossible solution.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

No, I don't believe that the directors of Smith and Wesson should be imprisoned if I choose to shoot my next door neigbour. More importantly, the law will, likewise, give such fantasies short shrift.

I didn't say that. Read what I said carefully. If someone provided the gun on a false and illegal basis that is another matter. You refer to this as a fantasy. I agree there is something rather fantastic yet true about how you go from 1987 to 2008 and produce the complete inverse affect with nothing more than a clarification. And if I were HMRC, I'd be sh*tting myself with the idea that someone might find out what is alleged. Whilst HMRC might be seen as a nameless face. People work there, probably most are good and decent but there be daemons out there and perhaps some walking in the shadow of HMRC. But you don't go from 1987 to 2008 without something extraordinary happening.

[Emigre]

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/

do we think we could get 100,000 to sign a petition, then this could get BN66 debated in house of commons.

There are only 3000 of us, plus relatives, friends if we have any left, plus cats and dogs. Is this one of those alias questions?

[smalldog]

There are only 3000 of us, plus relatives, friends if we have any left, plus cats and dogs. Is this one of those alias questions?

i have a praying mantis i might be able to convince with a cricket or two..

[OnYourBikeGB]

There are only 3000 of us, plus relatives, friends if we have any left, plus cats and dogs. Is this one of those alias questions?

What about

'we demand that the Government remove the bar to retrospective taxation introduced to protect large corporations and banks, having previously used it successfully to bankrupt 2,500 small businesses in the UK'

That'd get a debate going.

[Emigre]

What about

'we demand that the Government remove the bar to retrospective taxation introduced to protect large corporations and banks, having previously used it successfully to bankrupt 2,500 small businesses in the UK'

That'd get a debate going.

This is about engaging the wider population. How about:

"Due to the economic crisis, it has been suggested that the Govt is considering increasing the basic rate of income tax by 5% backdated by 8 years. We demand that all forms of retrospective changes to tax law be banned with changes made prospectively only."

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If you want to gain popular support (like capital punishment), you need to appeal to numbnuts.

"The Court of Appeal recently ruled in favour of retrospective taxes for people who don't pay their fair share. The Government should therefore retrospectively tax anyone who doesn't pay their fair share of tax."

Something like that would have a chance of getting passed the 100,000 mark and force the Government to explain why we have been singled out.

After, all it's only fair isn't it.

[Emigre]

If you want to gain popular support (like capital punishment), you need to appeal to numbnuts.

"The Court of Appeal recently ruled in favour of retrospective taxes for people who don't pay their fair share. The Government should therefore retrospectively tax anyone who doesn't pay their fair share of tax."

Something like that would have a chance of getting passed the 100,000 mark and force the Government to explain why we have been singled out.

After, all it's only fair isn't it.

I like your thinking. There are more people who don't pay tax at all so get them to vote that those who do should pay more. Its the kind of society we seem to live in now.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I like your thinking. There are more people who don't pay tax at all so get them to vote that those who do should pay more. Its the kind of society we seem to live in now.

There are groups like UK Uncut who would probably get behind it. The likes of Trade Unions, students might also support it.

Basically you'd be appealing to all the lefty types, of which there are plenty.

At the end of the day, you do have to ask the question: if retro was fine in our case, why not others?

[bananarepublic]

Dream on!

The idea of BN66 being repealed because the general public get up in arms about our treatment is ludicrous.

Some sort of campaign is a complete waste of time and almost certainly counterproductive.

Of course we are outraged at our treatment. The government attacked us (legally speaking) with a nuclear bomb when worse (single) cases of avoidance (e.g. have company, take on debt then pay said debt as special dividend to non-domicled wife, then claim relief against corporation tax (actually the profit but a reduction in CT is the result) on debt interest) have occured without so much as a wimper.

Translating that to popular fury is a different matter though.

Our best bet is to quietly go down the legal route. Admittedly the prospects of success are slim.