BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Dulakipper]

My alarm is how you can go to a meeting and someone in KPMG can come up with a broad statement that a scheme doesn't work in such a short space of time. In 1 hour, how could they possibly have reviewed and understood both the scheme and your personal situation within it.

I didn't go in there cold, I had mailed details of the planning to them a few days before the meeting and of course it should be a scheme they are familiar with as someone in the company did market it. I am not here to deceive just passing on my experiences unless this whole nasty business is sending me crazy

[moira under the stairs]

I didn't go in there cold, I had mailed details of the planning to them a few days before the meeting and of course it should be a scheme they are familiar with as someone in the company did market it. I am not here to deceive just passing on my experiences unless this whole nasty business is sending me crazy

So you broke the disclaimer you had with MontP that's why they don't give too much information out.

[travellingknob]

Principles of Tax policy

Some great words in sections 40-43 of that tax policy link. Pity they didn't pay attention to this bit:

40.
"While HMRC is charged with administering and collecting tax, it should not be left with the task of interpreting tax policy where there is uncertainty in the legislation. Guidance is helpful to taxpayers, providing information about HMRC's likely stance on a particular issue, but it does not determine the law."

42.
"HMRC's powers should be limited and should be subject to reasonable challenge in the courts. The public interest in ensuring that HMRC is not sole arbiter of the law overrides the interest in certainty."


I'm sure I could go on and on with this. I'm obviously bored this afternoon and need something else to do

[BrilloPad]

So you broke the disclaimer you had with MontP that's why they don't give too much information out.

Luckily they never look at the forum so no chance of them getting upset.

[moira under the stairs]

The Supreme court were told to reject our application for a hearing... the scheme is no longer going through the courts (memories of letter from Mr Gauke)... in the budget tomorrow the Tories will do the right and honest thing and there will be a short paragraph tucked away, out of view from the press, that revokes the backdated application of BN66....

... and then one of my colleagues nudged me in the ribs and woke me up!!!

eerie... had the same dream.

[Dulakipper]

So you broke the disclaimer you had with MontP that's why they don't give too much information out.

No just the details of the Finance Act 2008 and one of those nice random HMRC newsletters

[moira under the stairs]

Luckily they never look at the forum so no chance of them getting upset.

Sir ... the point is loose lips sink ships.

[Goinroamin]

KPMG Opinion

I had discussions with a Barrister this week who is familiar with the case and had previously written an article after the loss in the high court last year, in which she expressed her concern with retrospective legislation.

Unlike the meeting with KPMG she was very supportive of the case and felt that although all options from here were an uphill battle, there was a possibility of constructing a good case for ECHR.

She also suggested lobbying organisations like IOD and CBI and maybe even Barclays, has anyone written to any of these organisations previously?

[northernladuk]

Luckily they never look at the forum so no chance of them getting upset.

Are you sure? I thought some comments from the forums have been quoted by HMRC and others in the past?

[BrilloPad]

Are you sure? I thought some comments from the forums have been quoted by HMRC and others in the past?

montp do not look at the forum on an official basis - occasionally some staff do drop in (e.g. BOK).

HMRC watch every post. Hello you know who . In fact an AlanBrannigan account was created here at one point - but it was deleted.