BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The idea of BN66 being repealed because the general public get up in arms about our treatment is ludicrous.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

Actually I totally agree with you. I'm just trying not to seem negative or defeatest about other suggestions.

Personally, I am happy to take my chances with Lord Phillips and his merry men in the Supreme Court.

[OnYourBikeGB]

The idea of BN66 being repealed because the general public get up in arms about our treatment is ludicrous.

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.

I don't think that we'd ever get popular fury on our side, and that's missing the point of the tactic. The point would be to highlight that if we lose, and the politicians do nothing, then we'll do what we can to embarrass them. Personally, I do believe that people would support retrospective taxation on the likes of banks, irrespective of any economic argument. The Government would rather that the public believe that it was never possible, i.e. those devious bankers have got away with it, we can only stop them from now on. The don't want it being highlighted that they could in fact tackle the huge amount if tax avoidance and gave that power away. We would only benefit from perhaps a bit more understanding of the unfairness, because the context has been changed.

In summary, it'd be nothing to do with getting popular support, that would indeed be pointless, and very naive. It's about saying to them they have turned a blind eye to our fight against shameful legislation, and that maybe they should give that some thought before we push it in their face.

[Dieselpower]

Supreme Court

Hi : sorry if this has been asked already but does anyone know:

a. How long it typically takes before an application is heard (is there a queue of cases?)
b. How long it then takes (typically) to receive a judgement?

Just wondering how many more months/years we have until all this comes to a head

Thanks anyone

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hi : sorry if this has been asked already but does anyone know:

a. How long it typically takes before an application is heard (is there a queue of cases?)
b. How long it then takes (typically) to receive a judgement?

Just wondering how many more months/years we have until all this comes to a head

Thanks anyone

Actually, there are 3 stages

1) the time between submitting the application and it being approved (granted)
2) the time between approval and the hearing date
3) the time between the hearing and the decision

We're probably talking in the region of:

1) 3 to 9 months, depending on whether it involves an oral hearing
2) 6 months
3) 3 months

In other words, about 12-18 months in total.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Supreme Court website

Worth a browse.

The Supreme Court

[Dieselpower]

DR

Worth a browse.

The Supreme Court

Cheers for that DR.

[bananarepublic]

We would only benefit from perhaps a bit more understanding of the unfairness, because the context has been changed.

I think that it is possible for people to have the following opinion of our predicament:
1. Indifference
2. Hostility
3. Contempt

None of them are perfect but I'd rather have 1) than 2) or 3) and that is where a "campaign" will end up.

Best thing is to keep our mouths shut until after the final judgement.

[OnYourBikeGB]

I think that it is possible for people to have the following opinion of our predicament:
1. Indifference
2. Hostility
3. Contempt

None of them are perfect but I'd rather have 1) than 2) or 3) and that is where a "campaign" will end up.

Best thing is to keep our mouths shut until after the final judgement.

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.

[OnYourBikeGB]

OK, found the program code in question.

AFFECTED_THEN=15,000
AFFECTED_NOW=2,500
IF (date == 1987)
THEN
RETROSPECTION_MEANT = "No tax windfall to $AFFECTED_THEN known PARTNERS"
RETROSPECTION_RESULT != "Any taxation demands"
ECHO $RETROSPECTION_MEANT > /dev/tty/PUBLIC
ECHO $RETROSPECTION_RESULT > /dev/tty/PUBLIC
ELIF (date != 1987)
THEN
PARTNERS = "Anybody and everybody"
FI
FOR I IN ( COUNT NUM $AFFECTED_NOW)
DO
GREP $I $RETROSPECTION_MEANT
IF $0 = 0
THEN
RETROSPECTION_RESULT = "$PARTNERS Pay tax for the last 6 years"
ECHO $RETROSPECTION_RESULT > /dev/tty/PUBLIC
ECHO $RETROSPECTION_MEANT > /dev/null
FI
DONE

So you see, the code is fine. It's just that the value of the "variable" RETROSPECTION_RESULT has changed but RETROSPECTIVE_MEANT has not. But the code does not "echo" that unchanged variable. But if the code is the same as it was when "written" in 1987, how would they have been able to put the "IF" condition into it. I've checked and they didn't. So the code above was actually written in 2008 which is why it looks fine but is not the same as that written in 1987. So it most certainly has been changed not clarified.

And as the code shows, we've most certainly been DONE

Drat! Forgot the most important first line of this shell script:
#!/bin/bash
Or literally have "bin slashed, bashed"! Kinda how we feel really.

OK, getting a little UNIX nerdy now so I'll stop

Indentation?

[phileds]

At first I didn't remember you, so I just re-read your previous posts. You first popped up after we lost in the High Court and then disappeared for 18 months. Now you are back again. Interesting.

However, I digress, so what are you advising your chum to do?

I'm the chum.

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".

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.

Yes, things could change. It wouldn't be the first time that lower courts had agreed with a govt body but for the SC or the HoL to overturn their verdict. However, on tax avoidance, and a human rights defence, I fear the ball has been well and truly dropped. 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?

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.

HMRC of course doesn't give a flying. This can drag on for years, and they'll be as neutral as if they lost. It's what they do. And, as with IR35, being stupid brainless pointless law does not stop HMRC from chasing people it thinks have fallen foul of it, even if they lose IR35 cases with appalling regularity. But it's still law. And HMRC are still pathetic enough to take people to court on it.

I have a relatively low exposure (under £40k), and have a CTD to stop interest accruing (assuming the HMRC fkwits have calculated my liability correctly...)

I am very tempted, in my current position, to simply pay up and put an end to the uncertainty, and if, by some chance, the law is somehow reversed, take my chances to get my money back. But I haven't done so yet. If I can be sure that HMRC have calculated my liability correctly, and I've covered my arse sufficiently, I may just keep my CTD in place and ride this out - though the thought of this dragging on for years is no comfort.