BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[portseven]

Anyone think that what we need for Joe Public is an image/cartoon that we could distribute maybe put up on websites or ask people to post for us? Try explaining the facts to most people and watch their eyes glaze. Something like a hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil with Cameron, Gauke, while Hartnett with a glass of wine in one hand, arm round the bankers drops a ton weight with RETRO written on it on people below. Something that makes people ask and wonder what it's about. Then a symbol that represents our campaign. We ask some websites if they'd carry the symbol, which links to this forum or another one we set up. Just a suggestion, I've been trying to think how we can engage the public without boring them or making them hostile.

I like this idea, let's get this going viral!

Anyone a decent artist?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I may have missed the point here with this but can somebody clarify exactly what had been "amended retrospectively more than 20 years earlier" ?

BN66 amended this legislation from 1987.

UNITED KINGDOM MEMBERS OF PARTNERSHIPS CONTROLLED ABROAD (Hansard, 15 July 1987)

I would encourage you to read the debate and reach your own conclusions.

One thing to bear in mind though.

No-one (I repeat no-one) was retrospectively taxed by the 1987 legislation.

[VictorValiant]

CIOT Discussion Paper

[
Apologies if this has been referenced previously but this is the first time I have noted such a strong and specific reference to our situation from the CIOT:


The Chartered Institute of Taxation | Latest News | Retrospective Taxation: A CIOT discussion paper

Section 7.4

The overall tone of the paper is against retrospection and its use - albeit with the usual caveats. The question is will the Treasury Committee in its current deliberations take note of the views included therein and should we be making them aware of the discussions?

[Disgusted of Coventry]

The Suo Moto Scheme

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.

Does anyone actually know the terms of the Suo Moto deal?

If you've read DR's FOI requests, then you will have noticed HMRC's evasiveness on the subject. They even go as far as cross-referencing two different requests to justify their refusal.

It sounds like a valuable piece of information.

[GottaBeOptimistic]

BN66 amended this legislation from 1987.

UNITED KINGDOM MEMBERS OF PARTNERSHIPS CONTROLLED ABROAD (Hansard, 15 July 1987)

I would encourage you to read the debate and reach your own conclusions.

One thing to bear in mind though.

No-one (I repeat no-one) was retrospectively taxed by the 1987 legislation.

"It is important to consider the relationship between Parliament and the courts. Of course, Parliament is supreme and can do whatever it wishes, but the basic principle upon which people operate in our society is that they are entitled to take legislation at its face value, as determined by a court, for the time being. This clause would mean that those who have been doing that which they are perfectly entitled to do, as a court has found, will now have illegality visited upon them as a result of retrospective legislation."

Complex the issue maybe but the basic principles of what's been applied is quite sickening. Particularly as I feel we are being targeted and made an example of.

[GottaBeOptimistic]

Does anyone actually know the terms of the Suo Moto deal?

If you've read DR's FOI requests, then you will have noticed HMRC's evasiveness on the subject. They even go as far as cross-referencing two different requests to justify their refusal.

It sounds like a valuable piece of information.

Further inconsistency... it's a joke, totally pi**ed off.

[bananarepublic]

Does anyone actually know the terms of the Suo Moto deal?

If you've read DR's FOI requests, then you will have noticed HMRC's evasiveness on the subject. They even go as far as cross-referencing two different requests to justify their refusal.

It sounds like a valuable piece of information.

I believe that Monpelier have the full details. I have a vague idea, which was that there was a reduction in tax owed, plus no NI on the trust income (which was never mentioned by HMRC prior to BN66/S58 - another inconsistency in the court judgement and retrospection).

I am frankly staggered that the settlement isn't seen in a more important light. Apart from HMRC ignoring S58 back in 2003 (remember it "always" had effect), it undermines their argument that they had a consistent approach to people using our scheme.

[Donnie Darko]

Europe

I have a mate with Steed whose been in contact with the chaps at KPMG representing them.

They don't hold out much hope for Europe. Their barrister's opinion is that the court will take the view that the use of retrospective legislation is justified to protect the tax base.

[Lobscouse]

Email sent to Dominic Raab (Con) and TSC.

[harmony]

Does anyone actually know the terms of the Suo Moto deal?

If you've read DR's FOI requests, then you will have noticed HMRC's evasiveness on the subject. They even go as far as cross-referencing two different requests to justify their refusal.

It sounds like a valuable piece of information.

DR said previously what we know -

We know the users paid a discounted rate of tax on the trust income. No NIC. No interest