BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[TalkingCheese]

Couple quotes...

Just doing some lunchtime browsing and none of this is new but I am not sure we will have much luck with Mr Gauke...
Double Taxation: 24 Jun 2010: Hansard Written Answers and Statements - TheyWorkForYou

Sounds like he will go with the outcome of the judicial review even though HR was the only consideration.

...and as for Stephen Timms:
Finance Act 1987: 20 May 2009: Hansard Written Answers and Statements - TheyWorkForYou

...although at least it is clear that the legislation "is indefinitely retrospective".

This is the question I would like answered by HMRC or the treasury :
Why did it take 6-7 years of knowing about the use of the arrangement to a) let scheme users know why it didnt work (Feb 2008) and b) put its use "beyond doubt" ?

Sure this was the brainchild of some meeting Nov 2011 but do we know if anyone has ever answered this and why they believe it is justified to take that long ?

[lucozade]

Planning to visit my MP

I must say the wealth of information available is great. However, it's also very daunting!!

I'm trying to get my own head around all the detail, which does worry me because if we ourselves don't have a clear idea then how would an MP.

My take on things is that our aim is to get the retrospective element of BN66 removed, pure and simple.

But what's not so sure is the best approach to get my MP to properly stand up and take notice.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Why is "unwary" underlined?

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...nce%20Bill.pdf

Is this, therefore, an indication of the writer's intention to artificially present the notion that IoM PT should have been aware of retrospection?

[TalkingCheese]

Help on the fax

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...nce%20Bill.pdf

Can someone give me a quick rundown as to how this is helpful ? I can see they have crossed out the section where Rhys Williams condems the retro in 1987 but not sure how to use this to help our cause. I admit I havent read it all yet and will do so.

TIA

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

I must say the wealth of information available is great. However, it's also very daunting!!

I'm trying to get my own head around all the detail, which does worry me because if we ourselves don't have a clear idea then how would an MP.

My take on things is that our aim is to get the retrospective element of BN66 removed, pure and simple.

But what's not so sure is the best approach to get my MP to properly stand up and take notice.

Your point about MP's having a clear idea is valid. And that goes for David Gauke too as an aside about the Hansard commentary in an earlier post. Trust me on this lack of clear understanding by MP's. It's true. And no, I would not ask to have the retrospective element removed, that would invite windfall tax claims by those who had not yet made a claim for years before BN66. As Gauke had proposed at the time, it should apply from 12th March 2008 in line with the Rees-rules (your MP will know what these are so don't worry) and to create the same certainty in terms of retrospection as the law BN66 merely clarifies did in 1987. Where roughly do you live?

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Can someone give me a quick rundown as to how this is helpful ? I can see they have crossed out the section where Rhys Williams condems the retro in 1987 but not sure how to use this to help our cause. I admit I havent read it all yet and will do so.

TIA

You really need to read it carefully and as you do, think about what it says about us. Oh, and it's clearly a photocopy of the actual Hansard volume and after it was taken "someone" wrote 'as in new scheme' on the photocopy page. New Scheme? Well that must have been written way back when it was new. Yet HMRC never referred to Padmore until late 2007 when they looked at retro "for the first time". Shine a light, the tardis was busy going back and forward!

[Dieselpower]

Gauke Sqawk

Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park, Conservative)

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer

(1) what his policy is on continuing the provisions of Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008 in respect of UK residents and foreign partnerships; and if he will make a statement;

(2) whether he plans to introduce proposals to repeal legislative provisions that ensure UK residents retrospectively pay UK tax on their profits from foreign partnerships; and if he will make a statement.
Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 24 June 2010, c318W)


David Gauke (Exchequer Secretary, HM Treasury; South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)

UK residents are taxable on their worldwide income wherever it arises-including situations where it arises by way of foreign partnerships. Section 58 of Finance Act 2008 was enacted to help put that beyond doubt. The Government are, in general, opposed to retrospective legislation. However, the retrospective element of section 58 is currently the subject of judicial review by the courts and the Government's view is that it is best dealt with there.

"IS CURRENTLY" - BUT NOT ANYMORE! So now perhaps someone needs to ask Zac to reput the question to Gauke asap.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park, Conservative)


David Gauke (Exchequer Secretary, HM Treasury; South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)

UK residents are taxable on their worldwide income wherever it arises-including situations where it arises by way of foreign partnerships. Section 58 of Finance Act 2008 was enacted to help put that beyond doubt. The Government are, in general, opposed to retrospective legislation. However, the retrospective element of section 58 is currently the subject of judicial review by the courts and the Government's view is that it is best dealt with there.

"IS CURRENTLY" - BUT NOT ANYMORE! So now perhaps someone needs to ask Zac to reput the question to Gauke asap.

But the right question needs to be put. For fun you could try this to an MP:

What's the difference between retrospection? 21 years.

Also, the answer from Gauke is quoting verbatem from the BN66 Briefing Notes prepared by HMRC which in turn were written using the 1987 Inland Revenue Explanatory Notes that in turn were created from Hansard. Note as you will find numerous time between source and target, the wording has been manipulated. For example:

Hansard 1987 - UK residents are normally taxable on their worldwide income wherever it arises

IR Explanatory Notes 1987 - It follows that somebody resident in the UK is normally taxable on all his income no matter where it arises.

BN66 HMRC Briefing Notes - UK residents are taxable on their worldwide income wherever it arises

Hansard 2008 - UK residents are taxable on their worldwide income wherever it arises

See the subtle but consistent difference between 1987 and 2008? The first two suggests exception. The latter two cannot.

Oh and in the hand annoted copy of Hansard that HMRC have, someone had written "I.e. as in new Scheme" right next to the text on the first of the 4 points above. Now you see why the word "normally" suddenly disappeared. Or more precisley, after November 5th 2007. And you wonder why?

[helen7]

Some ideas

Does anybody have a list of the most useful/influential MP's to contact?

I suggest that people nearby those areas could either take out adverts in local papers or leaflet high streets urging people write to MP regarding retrospecitive taxation. In middleclass area's I am sure we would find sympathy as it is something that is likely to affect them in future.

Also, how about bulk printing up an 'information leaflet' giving a history of BN66 and key facts in an easy to understand way. This could be a good way of raising awareness and presenting the clear facts.

[SJack]

Originally Posted by TalkingCheese
Interesting...

MPs to investigate retrospective tax after government avoidance crackdown at Barclays - Telegraph

...Committee chairman And*rew Tyrie told The Sunday Telegraph: “Can retrospection be reconciled with the certainty a tax system needs in order to deliver an efficient economy? A simpler, more stable and fairer tax system is less likely to excite demands for retrospection.

"Any action the Government takes on this is likely to be something the committee would want to look at as part of our study into the Budget...”

Hope they take our situation into account and for the budget would be nice !

is Andr*w Tyrie (Conservative MP for Chichester) your local MP, if so could you contact him and ask him to look into section 58 as well.

Tyrie is my local MP. I am going to write to him, but I'm not very good at this sort of thing. Could anyone suggest an approach?