BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Donnie Darko]

I think the problem is that too many people have simply stuck their head in the sand and are hoping this goes away – maybe spending time reading forums such as this stresses them out too much so they’d rather pretend all is well and naively wait for the “we won” letter from MP

I used to be one of these people. That was before the High Court, Appeal Court and Supreme Court sent us packing. Anyone who is still hoping for it to go away is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Maybe when the tax demands hit in a few weeks the reality will sink in.

[Fireship]

"Contractors seem likely to be disappointed too, because the committee’s focus will be on the moves from the authorities to retrospectively tax “institutions,” The Daily Telegraph reported, rather than individuals or companies."

I think we need to change their focus.

Maybe when this meeting happens, a noisy crowd of us should stand outside of parliament waving placards.

Just a thought...

I take it you mean this meeting:

"However the retrospective closing of the loophole that once permitted contractors to lower their income tax and national insurance bills might still resurface, as the committee is scheduled to grill George Osborne, chancellor, following his 2012 Budget on March 21st."

I'm well up for that!!!! And it's certainly something we should make sure the TSC are aware of so they can raise the issue!!

[BolshieBastard]

I suppose the problem I have is that I can't see the Government reversing BN66. In the current climate it would be political suicide to be seen accommodating "tax dodgers". There's also the small matter of the £300M they think it will raise.

According to HMRC there are 3000 people in the scheme. At the moment they have no idea what the breakdown is of "can pays" to "can't pays".

If the majority of people can pay then there isn't a problem. On the other hand, if a high % of people can't pay then this starts to become politically sensitive.

Levying a retrospective tax is one thing.

Levying a retrospective tax that bankrupts 1000 people is another.

IMO, it is no longer a question of getting BN66 reversed. We fought that war and lost. We need to minimise the damage and get the penalty interest removed.

[Ninja]

Frank Field

Could someone remind me of Frank Field's analogy of MP's obeying the rules at the time during the expenses scandal and speed limits being changed retrospectively - I want to include it in the letter to my MP.

Cheers
Fred

No problem

"The MP added: "Imagine that you have been driving, perfectly legally, through a 30 mile an hour zone at a speed of 25 mph.

"Imagine then your reaction when, five years later, you receive multiple fines as a decision has been taken to change, retrospectively, the speed limit to 20."
Frank Field, Oct 2009 when referring to potential retrospective changes, proposed by Sir Thomas Legg, to MP's expenses

[Retro]

I used to be one of these people. That was before the High Court, Appeal Court and Supreme Court sent us packing. Anyone who is still hoping for it to go away is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Maybe when the tax demands hit in a few weeks the reality will sink in.

I agree completely.
My remaining hope rests with Montpelier who are well used to fighting difficult issues.
I am happy to be kept in the dark, Montpelier would most certainly not want any discussions about their plans to find their way onto this forum.

[nolongerlurker]

nolongerlurker

I have not posted for some time, but have again been 'lurking'.

Great info from a bunch of informed individuals - which is appreciated.

I too have sent emails off to local MP (SNP) x 2 and TSC. If this goes t1ts-up, then I'm in deep poo-poo's for well into 6 figures - not even sure if I'll be able to afford the required packet of razor blades and a tub of hot water!!

Who-ever else is still lurking - get off ur fat @rse and write!!

[OnYourBikeGB]

I suppose the problem I have is that I can't see the Government reversing BN66. In the current climate it would be political suicide to be seen accommodating "tax dodgers". There's also the small matter of the £300M they think it will raise.

Which is why in our letters make sure to emphasis the Hector has reneged on what they said in open court about waiting until the end of the legal process. Parliament may not be prepared to reverse BN66, but may be more willing to reign in over-zealous collection. That way they allow the legal process to be seen through with backing the 'dodgers' through repeal. We are only asking for Hector to be held to his word. And if we can get to Europe, maybe we stand a chance.

[Buzby]

Intereesting reading

http://www.11kbw.com/articles/docs/C...P1Taxation.pdf

Our case is a towards the end of this article.

[SantaClaus]

I take it you mean this meeting:

"However the retrospective closing of the loophole that once permitted contractors to lower their income tax and national insurance bills might still resurface, as the committee is scheduled to grill George Osborne, chancellor, following his 2012 Budget on March 21st."

I'm well up for that!!!! And it's certainly something we should make sure the TSC are aware of so they can raise the issue!!

I'm happy to be there if we can get a decent sized crowd. Maybe we need a poll to get an idea of numbers.

[bananarepublic]

http://www.11kbw.com/articles/docs/C...P1Taxation.pdf

Our case is a towards the end of this article.

Interesting read. There appear to be a number of holes in the arguments put forward -
1. HMRC saying, we don't like what you do and so will tax you - without providing an argument - doesn't seem to me to be an argument that justifies retrospection. It a bit like a bully saying that he wants your lolly pop, stealing it sometime later and justifying the theft on the basis he told you he would nick it off you.

2. Further to this, HMRC were hardly consistent. The arguments they provided against our claim actually strengthened it (Baker v Archer Shee). Again hardly a warning.

3. Where does the moral aspect come into taxation? I thought that we had to obey the law of the land. There is a famous judgement from circa 1936 if I recall where a senior judge says that tax does not have a moral dimension - or words to that affect. Only obeying the law does.

4. What about those people who were put under investigation many years after the event via discovery notices? They hardly had the chance to put money aside for the tax and interest.

Furthermore HMRC keep telling us that they must implement the law as far as S58 goes and collect the full tax due plus interest. Hang on a second though. They did not do this and explicitly broke the terms of S58 - which lets not forget has "always" been in affect - when they offered terms to members of the "Suo Motu" scheme back in 2003. There appears to be some inconsistency here.


One final point. You could argue that the use of discovery was valid because S58 has "always" had affect which means the declarations on the tax returns were invalid. However, following this line of argument also means the Suo Motu settlement was invalid, because retrospectively HMRC broke the rules they should follow when applying the law (and if they didn't why can't they offer us the same terms?). But if those affected by discovery are not taxed, even though they had broken S58, doesn't it make it unfair on those who had their returns opened within the 12 month window? Also it would mean the state turning a blind eye to the law in certain circumstances - oh I forgot they have already done this. This would mean that both groups have broken the law but only one has been taxed.

I've always wondered whether the wrong case was taken to Judicial Review. It seems that everybody affected or nobody affected should be taxed and I would have thought someone affected by discovery would have been a better bet.