BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Rhydd]

Article in "The Times" 29 Feb

An article by Ian King titled: "Closing loopholes or opening floodgates?" began: "Here's one for the next pub quiz. Who, in a speech on April 7, 2006 condemned Gordon Brown for imposing "iniquitous, retrospective changes" in taxation? The answer, you may be surprised to learn, is George Osborne, who on Monday slapped Barclays with some retrospective tax of his own".

The article ends: "It may seem clever to be hitting Barclays and other banks but the message it sends about doing business in Britain is terrible. The unease to which it will contribute will go farther than the banking sector. Still, what does that matter compared with a few favourable headlines and a couple of points in the opinion polls, eh?"

[freedomfighter]

Interest rates

I know its a bit like "closing the stable door", but with an uncertain timeline to conclude, I am belatedly preparing to go down the CTD route too. The low base rates make it just affordable to re-mortgage my house to cover the figure to negate future interest. I have requested MP provide me the correct figures and process to complete this.

I could not trust my investment skills to try and beat the HMRC's interest rate of 3.5% which was plan B. I considered the Euro Lottery and Vegas options too, but flipped the coin and it landed on tails, so CTD it is !

Any clever buggers who have a better idea, please PM me (the Dog is always for turning)

Dog

How can they justify such a rate when bank interest rates are kept artificially low so savers and pensioners get screwed yet again. Other counties where they are not robing their people blind have attractive interest rates and are stronger economies - funny how that can be related.

[travellingknob]

Its true this board is full of many different opinions and that is exactly why we need a dictator to pick up he challenge going forward. If the truth be known 70-80% will go with the flow, the remaining 20-30% will be split roughly equally between strongly opposed and strongly agree. Much like MP's when BN66 was debated in Parliament really !

Unfortunately you can see this forum will end up with much the same result. Thats not to say its not deeply appreciated what all those who have acted have tried to do and that the mass of info and advice available here hasn't been incredibly usefull to a very wide audience but the outcome will always be the same regardless.
I voted no to PR campaign.

[bve534]

PR campaign - wrong description

I voted no to PR campaign.[/QUOTE]

Since everyone and their brother reads this when I set up the PR campaign poll I had to call it that. What I really meant was get in a few low blows before we go down. It is a personal satisfaction thing. These clowns watched as my pension was fraudulently stolen by Equitable Life and now offer me 23% of what they calculate I lost (and they dont even have the balls or courtesy to show how they calculated it), introduced a numpty tax called IR35 to mess with our lives when none of them understood freelancing and finally they lied and cheated their way via Parliament and the judiciary to retrospectively tax us because we are plebs doing what plebs shouldnt. What did Blair say - we wanted to introduce democracy to Iraq!!!!! They deserve at least one kick in the balls for their troubles.

[SantaClaus]

It's only going to cost £10 from every one of us to get a full page advert in the Times. I really don't see what we have to lose at this stage. Even bad publicity is better than no publicity at all!

The debates on this forum can go round in endless circles and I'm sure HMRC are loving it. But until 3000 people vote in the poll above, we may as well just continue moaning.

[bve534]

Times advert

It's only going to cost £10 from every one of us to get a full page advert in the Times. I really don't see what we have to lose at this stage. Even bad publicity is better than no publicity at all!

The debates on this forum can go round in endless circles and I'm sure HMRC are loving it. But until 3000 people vote in the poll above, we may as well just continue moaning.

Exactly - I would pay a lot more than £10 for the pleasure. Of course the general public wont support us they would rather see our heads on pikes and I was never looking for their support. However not everyone who reads the Times business section is a numpty who to quote numpty Parker would say "I dont know how you thought you could get away with it" (great comment from a overpaid judge with a gold plated pension). Some will realise the thin end of the wedge spells potential trouble for their companies and UK plc. A really hard hitting headline and an explanation of the chicanery that has gone on within HMRC, Treasury, Judiciary, etc. written by a skilled PR expert. They cant do much with libel laws if all we do is state the facts. We may be able to convince a few more companies to up sticks and leave the UK when they realise Barclays is not an isolated incident and that we were the guinea pigs that allowed the legal precedent to be set. I will derive great satisfaction from just seeing that advert in all its glory!!

[SantaClaus]

Exactly - I would pay a lot more than £10 for the pleasure. Of course the general public wont support us they would rather see our heads on pikes and I was never looking for their support. However not everyone who reads the Times business section is a numpty who to quote numpty Parker would say "I dont know how you thought you could get away with it" (great comment from a overpaid judge with a gold plated pension). Some will realise the thin end of the wedge spells potential trouble for their companies and UK plc. A really hard hitting headline and an explanation of the chicanery that has gone on within HMRC, Treasury, Judiciary, etc. written by a skilled PR expert. They cant do much with libel laws if all we do is state the facts. We may be able to convince a few more companies to up sticks and leave the UK when they realise Barclays is not an isolated incident and that we were the guinea pigs that allowed the legal precedent to be set. I will derive great satisfaction from just seeing that advert in all its glory!!

I too would get great satisfaction from it.

[swede]

Ok, I've changed my mind.

Exactly - I would pay a lot more than £10 for the pleasure. Of course the general public wont support us they would rather see our heads on pikes and I was never looking for their support. However not everyone who reads the Times business section is a numpty who to quote numpty Parker would say "I dont know how you thought you could get away with it" (great comment from a overpaid judge with a gold plated pension). Some will realise the thin end of the wedge spells potential trouble for their companies and UK plc. A really hard hitting headline and an explanation of the chicanery that has gone on within HMRC, Treasury, Judiciary, etc. written by a skilled PR expert. They cant do much with libel laws if all we do is state the facts. We may be able to convince a few more companies to up sticks and leave the UK when they realise Barclays is not an isolated incident and that we were the guinea pigs that allowed the legal precedent to be set. I will derive great satisfaction from just seeing that advert in all its glory!!

Unfortunately there would only be 480 quid in the kitty if all "Yes" voters stumped up a tenner.

[Rhydd]

"The Times"

An article by Ian King titled: "Closing loopholes or opening floodgates?" began: "Here's one for the next pub quiz. Who, in a speech on April 7, 2006 condemned Gordon Brown for imposing "iniquitous, retrospective changes" in taxation? The answer, you may be surprised to learn, is George Osborne, who on Monday slapped Barclays with some retrospective tax of his own".

The article ends: "It may seem clever to be hitting Barclays and other banks but the message it sends about doing business in Britain is terrible. The unease to which it will contribute will go farther than the banking sector. Still, what does that matter compared with a few favourable headlines and a couple of points in the opinion polls, eh?"

"The Times" first letter in the "Letters to the Editor" page today is from a retired Parliamentary counsel and is strongly critical of the Banking Code of Practice which Barclays signed up to and also of retrospective legislation. Here is an extract:

"While pretending that it is voluntary, HMRC has bullied the banks into agreeing to a code that it has devised itself. The code has the same effect as law but, as HMRC admits, it is not law. HMRC has failed to procure fully effective means in law of coping with tax evasion so has fallen back on this extra-legal device. It is contrary to the rule of law for government authorities to coerce subjects in this way and ought not to be allowed. A law is a law, and what is not a law is not to be passed off by the executive as equivalent to law".

The letter goes on to criticise retrospective legislation. It ends:

"As Mr Justice Willes said in a famous judgement: 'retrospective legislation is contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated ought, when introduced for the first time, to deal with future acts, and ought not to change the character of past transactions carried out upon the faith of the then existing law'".

If only Mr Justice Willes could have judged the BN66 case.

[portseven]

while we are waiting for all the tenners to roll in, lets exaust the 'free' options first

can we get together a 'press pack' a quick google turned this up - How to Make a Great Press Pack!

i don't count myself as the most eloquent, so can we have someone write a page or so as to what the issue is. i suggest our angle is david vs goliath, and he banks getting preferential treatment in tax retrospection.

need to name a contact (any voluteers?) then lets start sending to to the press, if anyone has contacts that would be great.