BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[DonkeyRhubarb]

PR campaign

I've added a Poll to this thread - see above.

Let's guage the level of interest first. Unless we get a decent number, it's a non-starter.

[Emigre]

Yes, I'm in. Won £2.60 on the Euromillions last week.

Makes me think...shouldn't we apply for a Lotto grant as a good cause?

[SantaClaus]

Alternatively we could always start a riot at HMRC's head office....

...kidding!

[moira under the stairs]

Alternatively we could always start a riot at HMRC's head office....

...kidding!

Let's hope there isn't one there in the next few days, you could Imagine the headlines 'SANTA CLAUS TAX AVOIDER'S INSIGHT RIOT'

[SantaClaus]

Let's hope there isn't one there in the next few days, you could Imagine the headlines 'SANTA CLAUS TAX AVOIDER'S INSIGHT RIOT'

A few songs come to mind too....

I failed to predict a riot - Kaiser Chiefs
Panic on the streets of Tottenham - the Smiths

[screwthis]

A few songs come to mind too....

I failed to predict a riot - Kaiser Chiefs
Panic on the streets of Tottenham - the Smiths

Talking of songs...

I'm picturing 5 tax inspectors in a line singing...

"H M R C, it's fun to work in the H M R C"

[Fireship]

Hi and welcome to our little gathering.

I'm bumping your post just in case anyone missed it.

Count me in!!!

[SLB]

Count me in!!!

I completely understand the feeling of helplessness that surrounds this dirty case, but a 1 page, 1 off advert in a daily newspaper would barely make any impression. All you'd need is for another big story to hit the headlines, there are plenty around at the moment, and it would not even get noticed. E.g. gathering storm clouds over the Euro/US debt problems/another footballer caught with his c*ck where it shouldn't be etc and that would grab the headlines. Unless someone has connections in the media to keep pushing it and you're prepared to fund a prolonged campaign (which would require VERY deep pockets), you're throwing money away.

In the highly unlikely event that it did catch on, it could easily be spun against us and the whole thing would spiral way out of our control in ways we couldn't possibly predict and ultimately do more harm than anything else. You would need a Max Clifford-PR-type-guru to keep it from working against us. Sorry guys, not for me.

[TalkingCheese]

Retrospection strikes again :-(

So, we are 2 days away from exchanging contracts on the sale of our house and the buyers pull out because we need retrospective listed planning permission for the conversion of our barn in the early 90s .

We have a decision notice for when the barn was converted, from the local planning office, accepting conversion, explicitly stating it is not listed and also listed consent is not required. They now tell me this was a mistake by them and now we must put in a retrospective listed building application, which they state will be accepted but will take 8-10 weeks. This has caused our sale to fall through costing us a few grand in surveys, solicitors fees etc etc. They will not budge.

Retrospection sucks sucks sucks and they didnt even try the "clarification" card... just a mistake.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Sorry guys, not for me.

I fully understand your position. I can see it from both sides, for and against.

I'm not convinced it would achieve much other than making us feel a bit better but I think it is possible to word an advert in such a way that it can't be spun against us. The key is to focus on the precedent it sets rather than the rights and wrongs of our particular case.

The majority of the public would probably agree that BN66 was fair in our case but if "Huitson -v- HMRC" is allowed to stand then it has much wider ramifications. It would make it very difficult for anyone to challenge retrospective tax legislation in the courts ever again.

Anyone who attended the High Court will have observed how both sides Counsel used previous case law (and not just UK cases, there were ones from Finland and Italy) to argue their position. For HMRC, it was quite tenuous because there aren't any past cases that even come close to the scale of retrospection in BN66.

Now wind forward and imagine HMRC walking into a courtroom with "Huitson -v- HMRC" to refer to.

Scarey isn't it.

The only way you'd have a cat in hell's chance is if the retrospection was far more extreme than even BN66.

Neither the High Court nor the Court of Appeal really considered the wider implications.

I don't think the Supreme Court can ignore this. It's also worth remembering that any judgment concerning convention rights applies to all countries who have signed up, not just the country where the judgment was handed down.

There would be nothing stopping the tax authorities in say Germany or France citing "Huitson -v- HMRC" to justify retrospective legislation.