BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Fireship]

They have made it abundantly clear that it's for the courts to decide on BN66 and under no circumstances will they interfere.

They've also set out a new Protocol on unscheduled tax changes, which would prevent a BN66 type measure happening again in future. See pages 17-20.

http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011bu...xavoidance.pdf

This stops BN66 being seen as a green light to more retrospection and allays the concerns of business, foreign investment etc.

From the Government's point of view, it's just tough luck that we got singled out by the previous administration.

If they feel so strongly about it why can't they make this new protocol retrospective??

[SantaClaus]

If they feel so strongly about it why can't they make this new protocol retrospective??

Surely it's discriminatory too, to single us out for retrospective taxation and make sure it doesn't happen to anyone else?

[ContractIn]

They have made it abundantly clear that it's for the courts to decide on BN66 and under no circumstances will they interfere.

They've also set out a new Protocol on unscheduled tax changes, which would prevent a BN66 type measure happening again in future. See pages 17-20.

http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011bu...xavoidance.pdf

This stops BN66 being seen as a green light to more retrospection and allays the concerns of business, foreign investment etc.

From the Government's point of view, it's just tough luck that we got singled out by the previous administration.

If that is the case, can anyone recommend a good scheme? I'm more than happy to keep switching between them and build up some reserves for BN66!

[screwthis]

If that is the case, can anyone recommend a good scheme? I'm more than happy to keep switching between them and build up some reserves for BN66!

From what I understand, the best scheme requires you to become a politician, preferably Prime Minister.
I think this scheme involves off the shelf and offshore companies as well as trust partnerships that do not require discolure.

[Fireship]

Surely it's discriminatory too, to single us out for retrospective taxation and make sure it doesn't happen to anyone else?

Also, if the courts are willing to accept HMRC’s “will of parliament” argument then surely we can argue the same? According to this protocol it’s clear parliament think our situation should’ve have been allowed to happen and it’s clear they wish to prevent it from happening to anyone else!!

[smalldog]

err I dont get this, if the government have introduced a new measure to prevent BN66 happening in the future then why cant we be swept up in that rule and stop all this nonsense?

Introducing this measure basically admits the BN66 legislation is wrong and is an unplanned change, so how on earth can they argue otherwise regardless of so called morals??

That surely must be put forwards at the SC rather than whittering on about HR....

Its quite simple, parliament was misled, it was not a clarification it was retrospection and the HC has ruled as such, it should never have been allowed to stand and the latest government even admit this by preventing it happening in future. case closed...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Unfortunately, Governments very rarely revisit the past when they introduce new measures.

There is generally no restitution for people previously convicted of an offence which has subsequently been decriminalised.

Eg. homosexuality

It's called progress. You are meant to take comfort from the fact that no-one else will be punished for it again in future.

As an aside, I suspect if Labour got in again they would tear up the new protocol, especially if the courts allow BN66 to stand setting a precendent for retrospective taxes.

[smalldog]

Unfortunately, Governments very rarely revisit the past when they introduce new measures.

There is generally no restitution for people previously convicted of an offence which has subsequently been decriminalised.

Eg. homosexuality

It's called progress. You are meant to take comfort from the fact that no-one else will be punished for it again in future.

As an aside, I suspect if Labour got in again they would tear up the new protocol, especially if the courts allow BN66 to stand setting a precendent for retrospective taxes.

but what about when there is an open case still in play, I understand going back over closed cases isnt practical but this isnt over yet.

I understand your point but using homosexuality as an example, if the government all of a sudden decided homosexuality were to be made legal after being illegal and there were cases going through the courts of people being prosecuted as it was illegal at the time Im not convinced they would continue with prosecutions.

Plenty of people have thrown moral arguments around against us, surely we have a moral argument in this case if nothing else. Or do morals only apply to others and not us

[OnYourBikeGB]

but what about when there is an open case still in play, I understand going back over closed cases isnt practical but this isnt over yet.

I understand your point but using homosexuality as an example, if the government all of a sudden decided homosexuality were to be made legal after being illegal and there were cases going through the courts of people being prosecuted as it was illegal at the time Im not convinced they would continue with prosecutions.

Plenty of people have thrown moral arguments around against us, surely we have a moral argument in this case if nothing else. Or do morals only apply to others and not us

Is it worth putting a dossier together of major companies who are known to use tax avoidance - a hunt through the likes of Private Eye and a bit of research might be all that is needed. We are all professionals. We are all resourceful Collating the information and their methods, while detailing the personal impacts this is having as we did before on the HR angle and then sending it to all MPs with the simple question - Why only us? We demand to know.

And if they won't listen, we send it to anyone who will. I accept that 95% will think we had it coming, but I also think that they same amount of people will think it should be applied to all. The one thing I have noticed, even amongst those people who thought we were taking the proverbial, is that they all could not believe that the law could not be changed retrospectively. Is it worth trying to turn it so that it is not so much a question about whether we had it coming, as a potentially more politically embarrassing one about why we have it coming and yet the banks and major news corporations etc do not?

Maybe it would be pointless, I don't know, but I just feel like a passenger on the cart to the guillotine at the moment. I want to jump the guards and try to steal the horses.

[Fireship]

but what about when there is an open case still in play, I understand going back over closed cases isnt practical but this isnt over yet.

I understand your point but using homosexuality as an example, if the government all of a sudden decided homosexuality were to be made legal after being illegal and there were cases going through the courts of people being prosecuted as it was illegal at the time Im not convinced they would continue with prosecutions.

Plenty of people have thrown moral arguments around against us, surely we have a moral argument in this case if nothing else. Or do morals only apply to others and not us

Agreed, that's a very good point!!!