BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[bombaycat]

i hate local planners too

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.

Don't get me started on local planners, that must be where people who find tax inspecting and traffic warden jobs too lacking in the ability to piss people off as occupations. In my experience they mess you about for weeks on end pretending that the phone and email has yet to be invented, in my latest correspondence with mine they said that 37-31.5 = 6.5 - this was in relation to decibels and potential noise issues with wind turbines, they are careless and foolish.

[bananarepublic]

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.

Call me a troll but a PR campaign will be totally counterproductive.

Whatever we feel about our treatment average Joe Bloggs will probably think we got what we deserved.

So count me out. Our case will be won (if it can be) in a court of law not in the court of public opinion.

I am saving my pennies for my six figure tax bill!

[OnYourBikeGB]

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.

I'll give a guarded yes. Perception is key, and if we go down this route, it'll need input from a good PR agency or we'll get hammered as greedy tax dodgers crying over getting what we deserved. If it appears like we are claiming to be standing up for justice, we'll be laughed at. On the other hand if it's backed by CBI or other business groups, then maybe it's a runner.

[centurian]

It might be worth a punt, but it's very risky and needs to be considered very carefully.

I think the best angle is to warn people of the potential abuse if this becomes legal precedent.

Even that is dangerous. People rarely view things as black-and-white. Lots of people are quietly happy with long detention without trial, because they think (rightly or wrongly) that it will generally only be used against terrorists. Sure, they know it could be used against them, but many are happy to take that chance.

Likewise, there will be quite a few people who will take the line "I'm happy to take my chances with retrospection on the statute if it means the tax dodging scum get nailed".

[bve534]

retrospective taxation and retrospective pension payments

Having posted once I need to add another issue I have been investigating. This has been mentioned in a couple of blogs in the past but I have always thought this has some merit (as DR will confirm). If UK law is changed to allow HMRC to tax individuals retrospectively then surely those individuals might be allowed to retrospectively put their tax affairs in a situation "to their best advantage". Yes I know the pension laws are another Gordian knot (aptly named by chance) and the Govt will claim such a move is illegal under the pension laws but a precedent is being set in UK law by allowing retrospective taxation. In that case a precedent could be set for retrospective pension payments. I did raise the issue with MP but they basically didnt want anything to do with it. MP just said approach HMRC about your individual case!! so after picking myself up off the floor it is something I intend to pursue.

I did write to my main tax office a few weeks ago stating that I wanted all of my tax information moving to my local Tax office and the exact reasons why. They received that letter by recorded delivery but of course they have never replied. My next step is to try and arrange an interview with a senior tax inspector at my local tax office to discuss my options on pension payments to counter S.58.

The problem with this (apart from the obvious) may be that a number of those affected by the retrospective changes to the tax law do not have pension plans that were set up before 2001 but for those who do, it is something to consider. I am in this to the bitter end and will not go down without trying to find some method of fighting back against what MP rightly calls this iniquitous tax. If I calculate the maximum amount that I could have paid into a pension since 2001 I find HMRC owe me money given the relief at the higher rate tax they intend to retrospectively impose on me. I see another case for the SC on the horizon, perhaps not!!
Regards

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Next time (SC) may be different

I may be accused of wishful thinking here but there is one thing that jumps out at me from both the HC and CoA rulings.

The courts have only been looking at the specifics of our case ie. Mr Huitson's claim. They have not made any mention of precedent or the wider implications.

As I've said before, if "Huitson -v- HMRC" is allowed to stand then it gives a green light to further retrospective legislation. There is nothing legally which would stand in the Government's way.

And actually it's worse than that.

Tax authorities often test the boundaries. If BN66 is ok then how much further could they push it? What about more mainstream tax planning? What about even longer periods of retrospection? What about hitting tens of thousands of people rather than a couple of thousand.

BN66 is like Pandora's box. Once you open it who knows where it could lead.

As the court of last resort, I don't think the Supreme Court can ignore this bigger picture.

[helen7]

Having posted once I need to add another issue I have been investigating. This has been mentioned in a couple of blogs in the past but I have always thought this has some merit (as DR will confirm). If UK law is changed to allow HMRC to tax individuals retrospectively then surely those individuals might be allowed to retrospectively put their tax affairs in a situation "to their best advantage". Yes I know the pension laws are another Gordian knot (aptly named by chance) and the Govt will claim such a move is illegal under the pension laws but a precedent is being set in UK law by allowing retrospective taxation. In that case a precedent could be set for retrospective pension payments. I did raise the issue with MP but they basically didnt want anything to do with it. MP just said approach HMRC about your individual case!! so after picking myself up off the floor it is something I intend to pursue.

This is an interesting point. Looking at my letters from HMRC, they state that my tax return needs to be resubmitted as it contains an invalid claim. Therefore, why can I not resubmit my tax return claim an alternative relief such as pensions or, the money was not income; it was an interest free loan.

Quite why all my smug collegues who have been on loan avoidance scams for years have been allowed to get away with it is beyond me.

[screwthis]

This is an interesting point. Looking at my letters from HMRC, they state that my tax return needs to be resubmitted as it contains an invalid claim. Therefore, why can I not resubmit my tax return claim an alternative relief such as pensions or, the money was not income; it was an interest free loan.

Quite why all my smug collegues who have been on loan avoidance scams for years have been allowed to get away with it is beyond me.

Hmmm... would it be possible to pay the money back to the trusts and say "thanks for the interest free loan"? No income therefore no tax therefore no interest.

[TAF4]

loan avoidance scams

Schemes surely?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Therefore, why can I not resubmit my tax return claim an alternative relief such as pensions or, the money was not income; it was an interest free loan.

Because the Time Machine is for HMRC use only.