BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[bve534]

Scheme letter and HMRC newsletter

"HMRC officials summoned to appear before the committee refused to give details of deals agreed with large firms, including Vodafone and Goldman Sachs. Instead the committee had to rely on allegations from a whistle-blower, the HMRC lawyer Osita Mba."

So who exactly are HMR&C accountable to

When I received the recent HMRC newsletter I was particularly concerned about their comment that S.58 proved that the scheme didnt work, despite it still being an active case. They should have added "because we already know the SC ruling".

The reason is HMRC dont answer to anyone but the judiciary are obviously answerable to them. Given the judicial drivel we have been forced to listen to during the 2 previous cases simply supports that opinion.

[screwthis]

Can we see if there is any interest in the scheme trying to negotiate retrospective pension payments (apologies to those who didnt have a pension) with comments on the blog. In the event of success how many would be willing to pay the scheme their percentage for success. Two people (myself and Taxdude) would be willing to pay in the event of success but perhaps we are the only people with qualifying pensions, although I recollect this was the subject of a previous thread? If there is no financial incentive for the scheme to seriously look at this option then it wont happen. If we try approaching the Revenue (as I did) as individuals they will simply quote "pension laws cannot be retrospectively changed" (just the low blow to be expected) and have a good laugh at our expense. The request for retrospective pension payments in a "democracy" to balance part of the debt would also provide ammunition for a PR team. A drowning man clutches at straws.

I would be interested if it applies to me.

I was contributing towards a pension through my ltd co. but stopped it when I went into the DTA as it would not have been tax efficient (sans timemachine).

[bve534]

Pension validity

I would be interested if it applies to me.

I was contributing towards a pension through my ltd co. but stopped it when I went into the DTA as it would not have been tax efficient (sans timemachine).

Did you stop paying and keep the pension or close down the pension and take the money out? I would suggest you dont need to have made payments into a pension during this period but simply to have had a pension in place that could have received payments throughout the period from 2001.

The fact Govt started messing with contractors lives from 2001 is often forgotten. If they had simply left well alone we would have continued as Ltd companies paying into our pension funds (those who werent with Equitable Life!!). The problem was the total uncertainty that surrounded our working lives.

With our own time machine we should therefore be able to revert to 2001 and continue to do what we had been doing prior to that date.

[screwthis]

Did you stop paying and keep the pension or close down the pension and take the money out? I would suggest you dont need to have made payments into a pension during this period but simply to have had a pension in place that could have received payments throughout the period from 2001.

The fact Govt started messing with contractors lives from 2001 is often forgotten. If they had simply left well alone we would have continued as Ltd companies paying into our pension funds (those who werent with Equitable Life!!). The problem was the total uncertainty that surrounded our working lives.

With our own time machine we should therefore be able to revert to 2001 and continue to do what we had been doing prior to that date.

Pension is still open

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Has anyone tried to figure out why H launched such a frenzied attack upon the Principle of Causality? It's just that it seems so unprecedented.

Look, for instance, at what they've tried to do with the word 'clarify'. It's been used as a contraction of "To make clear that which, we will later submit, was already clear in the first place."

Here are some suggestions for their Departmental Dictionary of Newspeak:

clarification (n).......See meaning.
distortion (n)..........A goal-orientated reconfiguration (esp. of fair Legal process)
meaning (n)............See clarification.
retrospective (adj)...Something that was originally our fault but is now, after clarification, someone else's fault.

At the risk of sounding like a paranoid conspiracy-theorist, this has the flavour of an exercise in blame-avoidance. But, even if that were true, what would have been the error for which they are so determined to avoid responsibility?

It must have been pretty serious to produce so much Alice in Wonderland logic.

[centurian]

Pension is still open

While what you are saying makes sense, I would be gobsmacked if it was allowed, because it would open up an even bigger can of worms. After all, if it was allowed, why retrospectively make pension payments - you could retrospectively say you were joining a different offshore scheme that wasn't attacked by BN66.

HMRC will also argue that there was nothing stopping you from putting money into a pension fund anyway, for investment purposes - and if you had done, it would have been offset against your current bill.

By all means try, but I reckon the chances of success are very, very low.

[screwthis]

While what you are saying makes sense, I would be gobsmacked if it was allowed, because it would open up an even bigger can of worms. After all, if it was allowed, why retrospectively make pension payments - you could retrospectively say you were joining a different offshore scheme that wasn't attacked by BN66.

HMRC will also argue that there was nothing stopping you from putting money into a pension fund anyway, for investment purposes - and if you had done, it would have been offset against your current bill.

By all means try, but I reckon the chances of success are very, very low.

What you are saying makes sense but it also highlights just how ridiculous the whole retrospective thing is. It creates a paradox (time travel will do that).

The reality is that I would have continued with the pension contributions but as you say I can't retrospectivly claim that as with hindsight I could claim to do anything.

That's why the law has to be the law at the time whether it's fair, dis-proportionate, aggressive or whatever.

It makes no sense to retrospectively contribute to a pension but where we find ourselves makes no sense.

And yes if the scheme was illegal AT THE TIME, we would have entered another scheme, or no scheme at all (inc. pensions etc.)

[centurian]

Hey, you asked for an opinion - sorry it wasn't what you wanted to hear - but I genuinely reckon the chances of having pension contributions retrospectively accepted are very low - considerably lower than the chances of winning at the SC.

[screwthis]

Hey, you asked for an opinion - sorry it wasn't what you wanted to hear - but I genuinely reckon the chances of having pension contributions retrospectively accepted are very low - considerably lower than the chances of winning at the SC.

No, I agree with you 100%
Wan't having a go at what you said.

Just saying that what you said goes to further show that ANYTHING retrospective doesn't make sense.

BTW I didn't ask for an opinion, was just responding to bve534 when he/she was asking who would be interested in paying MP if they represented us on this.

[bve534]

retrospective pension payment

No, I agree with you 100%
Wan't having a go at what you said.

Just saying that what you said goes to further show that ANYTHING retrospective doesn't make sense.

BTW I didn't ask for an opinion, was just responding to bve534 when he/she was asking who would be interested in paying MP if they represented us on this.

Steady on lads you are forgetting we live in a beacon of democracy to the world. One that has taken that shining flag to forcibly introduce democracy to rogue states. Surely the citizens of such a state have democratic rights as well. Yes we would have continued paying into pensions if our whole world hadnt been turned upside down by Govt legislation in the first place. Are you forgetting we were termed "disguised employees" and expected to pay (a fair amount of tax)PAYE despite having no employee benefits. Any man put in that position in a democracy had to fight back.

In fact I have opened a SIPP since the Equitable disaster and paid some money into it during the period the scheme was running. I thought that a democratic right was for a citizen of the UK to be allowed to arrange their tax affairs to their best advantage. All we are asking for is a level playing field to retrospectively arrange our tax affairs to our advantage. As you say we could claim anything (e.g. we all wanted to move to a tax free state for the whole period so owe the UK nothing) but the fact is many of us can probably show that pre-2001 and perhaps post 2001 we had/still have pensions and paid into them. They exist and are real (not a wish list you describe of what we could claim) and therefore if a UK govt retrospectively changes the tax law then its citizens should be able to arrange their tax affairs retrospectively within the framework that existed throughout those years that are being retrospectively taxed. Numerous pension law changes have occurred during that period but the one pension law/rule that existed throughout that period was that pension payments were/are tax deductible. I realise HMRC and the establishment will laugh as the plebs wriggle on the hook trying to escape but with the right PR support perhaps we can use this as a "settlement" (perish the thought) issue based on citizens democratic rights.