BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[SantaClaus]

Also done. And a letter to my MP asking what can be done to hold HMRC to their word that collection will not be enforced until the end of the legal process, as they stated in open court.

Good point. After all, we are either part of Europe or not. And if we are, the full legal process includes the ECHR.

I bet if I had a hook for a right arm, my case would be heard in Strasbourg.

[Emigre]

It looks like the retrospective element has effect from 1st Dec. 2011. I think it's of the 1987 variety, wherein it prevents future profit from past activities.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/wms_...ips_270212.pdf

At any rate, Mr. Gauke describes it as "full retrospective effect". So what does that make s58? Fuller?

No, apparently that is "clarification"...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The Barclays tax avoidance was lead story on Radio 4 Today programme this morning.

Gauke was interviewed. The legislation does appear to be fully retrospective, clawing back tax from previous transactions. Gauke said they would continue to use retro in exceptional circumstances. The interviewer pointed out the signal this sends for doing business in the UK but Gauke brushed it aside.

I wonder if it is a mere coincidence that this announcement comes a couple of weeks after the Supreme Court turned down our appeal?

[centurian]

And whatever the deep technical legal points as to whether this is BN66-style retrospection or not - MPs won't get involved in that level of detail, so as far as they are concerned, this is exactly retrospection.

So how many of them who previously said that retrospection was a bad thing - will now vote for it.


Sorry to be blunt about this, but it also sends a message that anyone who realistically thinks parliament will now overturn BN66 needs a severe reality check.

[eek]

The Barclays tax avoidance was lead story on Radio 4 Today programme this morning.

Gauke was interviewed. The legislation does appear to be fully retrospective, clawing back tax from previous transactions. Gauke said they would continue to use retro in exceptional circumstances. The interviewer pointed out the signal this sends for doing business in the UK but Gauke brushed it aside.

I wonder if it is a mere coincidence that this announcement comes a couple of weeks after the Supreme Court turned down our appeal?

Its clearly not a coincidence. The time is just about enough for it to filter into HMRC and for them to get a message up to the ministers. I'm starting to feel really sorry for everyone effected I think you've been used to prove a point.

[eek]

And whatever the deep technical legal points as to whether this is BN66-style retrospection or not - MPs won't get involved in that level of detail, so as far as they are concerned, this is exactly retrospection.

So how many of them who previously said that retrospection was a bad thing - will now vote for it.

There isn't going to be a vote. I would imagine this will be a Statutory Instrument with no vote unless a few MPs object and who is going to object to a rule forcing a tax abuser to pay their dues.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

The Barclays tax avoidance was lead story on Radio 4 Today programme this morning.

Gauke was interviewed. The legislation does appear to be fully retrospective, clawing back tax from previous transactions. Gauke said they would continue to use retro in exceptional circumstances....

Didn't hear the Today programme, but from what I read last night it sounds like a PR stunt. It enables Mr. Gauke to wheel out the phrases "full retrospective" & "wholly exceptional" whilst doing nothing very much at all.

Retrospective to 1st Dec. 2011 sounds wholly mild in comparison to s58.

[marcuss]

Didn't hear the Today programme, but from what I read last night it sounds like a PR stunt. It enables Mr. Gauke to wheel out the phrases "full retrospective" & "wholly exceptional" whilst doing nothing very much at all.

Retrospective to 1st Dec. 2011 sounds wholly mild in comparison to s58.

Wonder, why Barclays (and others affected) not going to the courts - UK and Europe. Or are they fighting this?

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Sorry to be blunt about this, but it also sends a message that anyone who realistically thinks parliament will now overturn BN66 needs a severe reality check.

Happy to be blunt about this, but it also sends a message that BN66 exceeds "full retrospective" by a Margin of Cosmological Width.

[swede]

Deals?!?!?!? WTF?

Happy to be blunt about this, but it also sends a message that BN66 exceeds "full retrospective" by a Margin of Cosmological Width.

In a separate development, HMRC said it would appoint a senior official to act as an "assurance commissioner" for any tax deals struck with big companies for more than £100m.


So why do they get deals, when they can afford the damn bill?

Can we get an assurance commissioner too?