BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[SantaClaus]

One rule for us, another for Vodafone. Wonder why HMRC won't pick on someone their own size?

Vodafone pays just £1,400 tax on profits of £3.5bn | Mail Online

[bombaycat]

Just to warn people I happened to check my online status and discovered that they've slipped in a recalculation for 2008 on Thursday on the sly and now want numbers of thousands. Obviously I've sent it straight off pronto to MP for appeal as per my other 2 years of CNs.
I have not received any correspondance I fully expect it's in the "outtray to be posted for Christmas".
Thought it worth mentioning that they are obviously doing another trawl so worth proactively checking so we can give MP as long as possible to appeal stuff without the Christmas rush that HMRC are obviously attempting to concoct to stress them at their busy time.

Happy days....

And today it turns up in the post - so off to MP for appeal.....I can't believe they didn't wait until Christmas post - they are losing their touch!

[Ganimos]

SURPRISE ??

Here's a surprise !!


HMRC hides errors to stop taxpayers appealing unfair demands | Mail Online

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Gaines-Cooper loses in Supreme Court

Gaines-Cooper loses Supreme Court hearing - 19 Oct 2011 - Accountancy Age

[screwthis]

Gaines-Cooper loses Supreme Court hearing - 19 Oct 2011 - Accountancy Age

Time for Occupy HMRC

[geoff from contracta IOM]

Gaines-Cooper loses Supreme Court hearing - 19 Oct 2011 - Accountancy Age

Richard Teather, senior lecturer in tax law at Bournemouth University, said:
"In this case, HMRC has argued that it is not bound by its own published guidance and has sought to change long-established practice retrospectively. This result is bad news for taxpayers and for the wider UK economy because such an approach destroys trust in HMRC as it will drive wealth creators away from the country and result in less tax being gathered rather than more."

Says it all really

[BolshieBastard]

Gaines-Cooper loses Supreme Court hearing - 19 Oct 2011 - Accountancy Age

Just shows, we are f *cked.

[centurian]

It is an ominous sign.

HMRC's argument was that although this chap followed the strict letter of the guidlelines, he did not follow the spirit of the underlying rules - and was still effectively resident in the UK.

The problem is that the highest court in the land seems to agree with them.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

It is an ominous sign.

HMRC's argument was that although this chap followed the strict letter of the guidlelines, he did not follow the spirit of the underlying rules - and was still effectively resident in the UK.

The problem is that the highest court in the land seems to agree with them.

This is a quite different to BN66.

It would have been comparable if HMRC had taken us to court on the basis of a new interpretation of s62 1987, and the courts had agreed with this interpretation. BN66 changed the law itself and denied us the opportunity to challenge the new interpretation.

Now if HMRC had revised the residency guidance booklet and backdated the amendments 20 years, then that would be like BN66 !!!

[prozak]

It is an ominous sign.

HMRC's argument was that although this chap followed the strict letter of the guidlelines, he did not follow the spirit of the underlying rules - and was still effectively resident in the UK.

The problem is that the highest court in the land seems to agree with them.

I don't know the complete details of the case, but I've been reading residency rules recently due to the possibility of a contract abroad.

I say HMRC got it right.

Although the rules talk about how many days you need to be in the UK they also talk about ties to the UK and the intentions of the tax payer.

So for my example, I don't think my claim for non-residency would work because I have every intention to return to the UK for my sons school. I will maintain a house in the UK in my absence. So even if I was abroad for 200 days of the tax year I would think I would lose any residency argument.