BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[smalldog]

Which would be fair comment if we were asking them to support us. I am under no such illusion, they won't. In fact we could count on it. What'd be more likely to happen is that they think that it should also be applied elsewhere. In the unlikely event of it ever actually being debated, the Government would then have to explain why it was applied only once on us (hence, in context we would be seen to have got what we deserved, but also that we have been discriminated against - slightly different context as the argument has broadened) and not to the real big tax avoiders like the banks. That could be uncomfortable for the Government because there are economic reasons that the big corporations have been let off and protected, but most of the public won't see it that way, particular if a focus is placed on companies they (i.e. the MPs) have / had links to. I think politicians would possibly recognise the potential danger of this and may move subtly to apply a little bit of pressure to HMRC to avoid it arising, especially if we are prepared to go to the tribunals, which will happen anyway if we win in SC.

Put it like this, if we lose in the SC, and they collect, what do you think are the chances of getting it back once you convince them they've been unfair ten years from now, and there's no process that can be negotiated anymore?

That said, I'm pretty convinced I'm p*ssing in the wind with this line of thinking on here, and I'm not one to ignore the opinions of others, especially when I know we're all in the same boat together. Perhaps because I believe that the odds of winning in the SC are slim at best and that the SC judges will also choose from one of your 3 options, like the last 4 judges have. I don't really believe that 4 very experienced and knowledgeable judges missed the point at all, Parker just wanted rid of us quicker. I think that they thought it wasn't relevant - and that this time we'd better come up with something a bit better. I was shocked that we got not a single word of support. Hopefully next time things will be different but I'm in it to the end, regardless.

easy, theyd blame the previous government

[DonkeyRhubarb]

NS trained as a solicitor, is not affected by BN66, has never been a member of the MP scheme, and has no axe to grind with anyone. He's just writing here what he tells me, because whenever we argue about this subject, I invariably quote what I've read here, and he more often than not tells me that "that's not how the law works".

Maybe it's not always clear on here but I'm sure most people realise we are challenging primary legislation of Parliament.

Our beef with HMRC is over maladministration and deliberately misleading/deceiving Parliament.

His advice to me? Not alot other than to hammer home the basic legal position, and just to say, unfortunately, "you're pretty much stuffed". NS did tell me well before MP went to court that an ECHR defence would be highly unlikely to get anywhere.

I don't disagree it's a mountain to climb, as is the PwC claim. But it's the best shot we've got.

To reiterate NS's earlier point - if MP was so sure of the legal basis of the scheme, and with HMRC allegedly thinking the scheme unattackable with then-current law, why didn't MP get the matter judged in front of the tax commissioners on the letter of the law?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but he's being a bit disingenuous.

MP were only one of several promoters, along with property developers. None of the others thought to force the issue either. Why? Because it's not for the taxpayer to demand to be taken to court by HMRC.

I've argued endlessly with him about the unfairness of the position - but (and I'm sure he'll correct me on this if I've missed a point), Parliament made the law, and the law cannot be unwound anything like as easily as some here would wish.

I'm not sure anyone here is under the illusion that it's easy.

[OnYourBikeGB]

easy, theyd blame the previous government

ACT 1
Journalist interviews MP.

Journalist: congratulations on beating those nasty tax avoiders in the SC

MP: well as you know, the Government takes a dim view blah blah

Journalist: I was listening to your voicemail yesterday, and I believe you are an advisor to the board of ACME. ACME have 5000 employees in the UK, yet pay no corporation tax

MP: Ummm

Journalist: can you explain why the Government has taken removed the possibility of recouping the loss to the exchequer and moved to protect companies like ACME, that you were closely connected to?

MP: ummm - retrospection is inherently bad for the economy, makes the tax system unstable blah blah

Journalist: yet you have just bankrupted 2500 small businesses. Is your connection with ACME not unethical in the circumstances as well as blatant hypocrisy? I'm telling!

ACT 2

MP wakes up - it was all a bad dream. Grabs phone.

MP: Put me through to big Dave at Hector's House, B*stard Towers

Dave: Dave here

MP: You know all those slimy tax dodgers, I've been thinking we should stand up for our principles, but we want to make sure they can pay up - so what say we cut them a little slack, take them to the tribunals or hold back on the interest. There's a free meal in it for you.

Dave: Yes minister

And that's my thought process in a nutshell. It's not about getting public support, it's not about MPs looking kindly on us and letting us off. They already know that we have been treated unfairly, they're just too chickensh*t to do anything about it. It's about trying to get them to realise that they may also have awkward questions to answer if they do not intercede,and that we are prepared to force the issue. That's it, not another word on the matter. I thought the idea had legs, but perhaps not.

[centurian]

It's not about getting public support

And that's where it falls down. Politicians only do anything that the public ultimately support (even the cuts are supported, grudgingly by many).


An alternative scenario. An MP is sitting in his constituency office.

Their assistant brings in a letter from a constituent.

The MP reads the letter - it's from someone being affected by retrospective legislation, with a thinly veiled threat to "expose" the MPs connections with tax avoiding companies unless they act to repeal the retrospective legislation.

The MP suddenly turns to their assistant with an urgent question that has sprung to his/her mind - "What did you say was for lunch today?"


Seriously, that is how flippant they will treat this threat. It'll be like brushing dandruff off their shoulder. Even if they have any dirt, the letter will just ensure that they put extra shields in place to protect themselves.

The problem with the expenses scandal is that the stupid/rotten ones are gone. All we have left now are the clean ones, or those too smart to be caught out.

[centurian]

Also, at the risk of getting flamed again (my comment about being careful on not overusing the word "fair" went down like a lead balloon a few days ago), MP's have a pretty easy get-out card.

"It's true that I have a connection to Acme. I feel it is important to be involved with companies such as Acme - that invest in the UK and provide thousands of jobs to hard working families up and down the land.

If reports are correct that Acme are paying low levels of UK corporation tax, that is a matter for the tax authorities to look at - in co-operation with Acme's auditors. But we should not allow that to detract from the good work that Acme are doing providing all these jobs which supplies the exchequer with billions of pounds of tax revenue, that is vital in supporting public services in these difficult times."

Notice I deliberately sidestepped retrospection in the response. The point is that if I can knock this out while drinking a beer on a Saturday afternoon, imagine what argument a well trained politician & spin doctor can produce.

Put simply, they'll say that chasing the big guys is counter productive - and that schools/hospitals will close if they do, but individual tax avoiders don't employ people, so there is no disadvantage to pursuing them to the ends of the time. Before the I get shot down in flames again, it doesn't matter if that last statement is true or not - that's the spin that will be placed upon it.

[centurian]

Maybe it's not always clear on here but I'm sure most people realise we are challenging primary legislation of Parliament.

I think those that are very close to the detail are fully aware, but many others - including a lot of those affected have blurred many of the issues.

In particular a lot of energy has been directed to HMRC's actions, of which you can quickly exhaust a thesaurus in describing their behaviour. But it seems as far as the courts are concerned, this is irrelevant in determining the legality of BN66.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

In particular a lot of energy has been directed to HMRC's actions, of which you can quickly exhaust a thesaurus in describing their behaviour. But it seems as far as the courts are concerned, this is irrelevant in determining the legality of BN66.

Correct. The courts are only being asked to rule on whether BN66 is compatible with a1p1 or, in the case of PwC, art 56.

What HMRC did, or didn't do, is largely immaterial.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Also, at the risk of getting flamed again

Eh? I don't think you were flamed at all, one direct response moving onto a discussion amongst everyone else does not a flaming make. I think most if not all of us are more than willing to listen to those not actually affected, it gives perspective, unless it crosses over to stirring it up for the sake of it or has happened a few times, gloating. But if you offer an opinion, you shouldn't get upset if someone disagrees especially if it's a reasoned and reasonable response. Have another beer, at least you can afford to relax.

And that's where it falls down. Politicians only do anything that the public ultimately support (even the cuts are supported, grudgingly by many).

Which explains the death penalty for child molesters, the impartial inquiries, like Hutton, into Governmental controversies and of course, making the bankers pay for their mistakes and stopping those bonuses. Politicians do not just do what the public wants, they do what protects themselves the best.

[centurian]

Probably more of a minor singe, rather than an outright flaming then.

But I do understand that people's houses are at stake here and I know it's an emotive subject, which is why I resisted the urge to respond at the time.

[bve534]

Bringing the introduction of retrospective tax to a wider public

I have never posted on the board because I was hoping all you IT experts might give us a site to discuss key issues privately. I work as a drilling engineer in Aberdeen, freelancing since 1988. I joined the scheme from day 1 and intend to see this through to the bitter end. I suffered a double whammy in 2001 with IR35 and Equitable Life, as my livelihood/way of life was threatened and my 13 years of pension payments evaporated overnight.

Our current situation is not good and for me the final straw was reading the protocol on tax changes because I didnt think they would have enough sense to do that. It told me they know exactly what they are doing, vindictively attacking a small group of contractors (who are undoubtedly seen as plebs not knowing their place) while writing a protocol that says it wont happen again.

Having read the protocol the question is whether these guidelines will mean anything when set against legal precedent if we lose. Given that situation my suggestion is that we take out a full page advert in a national paper on the introduction of retrospective taxation in the UK. We have already seen enough comments on the board to put together a hard hitting headline and a few words (not too many) in very bold print. I was told the cost for a one page advert is around £35k. I am certainly willing to put some money into that and perhaps Gaines-Cooper and the property developers might support it.

Yes we can wait for the SC but that would be too late and at the current time retrospective taxation is a fact in law whether it is being enforced or not. We need to alert UK plc to the threat that is out there and although I have written to the CBI I cant see any other way of bringing the facts to a wider audience although others may have a better idea. It may seem like pouring good money after bad but I hate this feeling of being totally powerless as we are singled out for special treatment, when everything was perfectly legal until Budget 2008.
regards