BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Buzby]

meeting with MP

Prior to my meeting with my MP I thought I would have a little Devils Advocate Q&A against myself. Any extra comments/corrections, either way feel free:

What is the justification for such retrospection in the law that Section 58 Finance act 2008 allows ?
- The intent of the law has not changed and dates back to 1987. Therefore it is no surprise.
Then why not just apply the "intent" of the law to those affected by taking cases to the special commissioners ?
- because the law needed to be clarified beforehand
...

[/B]

this is all good, and will help with my meeting tomorrow with local MP. I am going to try and show that Jane Kennedy had been misled by HMRC, and that the debate on 28th May 2008 was therefore misled and if the facts had been raised in that debate the vote could have been different. among other things, she stated that the 'scheme users will have been aware that Parliameter had closed down similar schemes 20 years ago with retrospective effect.

no I didn't know about this, but if this is the same as 1987 then why are we now 'faced with unexpected and unprovided for tax liabilities for past years.'

[Dieselpower]

this is all good, and will help with my meeting tomorrow with local MP. I am going to try and show that Jane Kennedy had been misled by HMRC, and that the debate on 28th May 2008 was therefore misled and if the facts had been raised in that debate the vote could have been different. among other things, she stated that the 'scheme users will have been aware that Parliameter had closed down similar schemes 20 years ago with retrospective effect.

no I didn't know about this, but if this is the same as 1987 then why are we now 'faced with unexpected and unprovided for tax liabilities for past years.'

Just to add to that Buzby - jane kennedy was told that this legislation was simply clarification of Padmore (in other words we as scheme participators were already "on notice" that what we were doing was ILLEGAL). The Court of Appeal last year stated it to be pure and simple Retrospection. Such confirmation can be gleaned in almost every paragraph from the 13 page CoA judgement last year. It is a vital and critical point. It proves therefore that we were not "on notice" of anything at all, and that the gments actions were retrospective not "clarification". This makes the whole thing even more unfair and absurd. You will have heard Mr Osborne talk about the importance of "putting people on notice" yesterday. We were never on notice. We thus have EVERY right to argue our case.

[Buzby]

CoA judgement

Just to add to that Buzby - jane kennedy was told that this legislation was simply clarification of Padmore (in other words we as scheme participators were already "on notice" that what we were doing was ILLEGAL). The Court of Appeal last year stated it to be pure and simple Retrospection. Such confirmation can be gleaned in almost every paragraph from the 13 page CoA judgement last year. It is a vital and critical point. It proves therefore that we were not "on notice" of anything at all, and that the gments actions were retrospective not "clarification". This makes the whole thing even more unfair and absurd. You will have heard Mr Osborne talk about the importance of "putting people on notice" yesterday. We were never on notice. We thus have EVERY right to argue our case.

excellent point. to save me searching, do you have a link to the CoA judgement so I can add to my documents?

thanks

[Dieselpower]

excellent point. to save me searching, do you have a link to the CoA judgement so I can add to my documents?

thanks

Buzby I dont have the link I am afraid but I think DR can provide the link

[ir35amnesia]

excellent point. to save me searching, do you have a link to the CoA judgement so I can add to my documents?
thanks

URL: Huitson, R (on the application of) v HM Revenue and Customs [2011] EWCA Civ 893 (25 July 2011)

[Buzby]

URL: Huitson, R (on the application of) v HM Revenue and Customs [2011] EWCA Civ 893 (25 July 2011)

thanks

[Disgusted of Coventry]

But this is very different to giving an unexpected windfall, resulting in the public purse paying back the money. In the case of S.58 it is not money the public purse currently has, or expects, without the retrospective application.
Also most wont be able to pay as it is a surprise tax
- they should have saved the extra money as they knew it was a risk due to investigations <No answer again on the difference>

But it's an unnatural state of being: to believe that we are living in such a 'Climate of Fear' that we feel obliged to make provision against the future retrospective whim of Parliament.

Any good?

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Government justification for BN66 retro

Direct quote from Parliament debate, May 15 2008:

"Jane Kennedy: A fundamental purpose of the clause is to put it beyond doubt that a wholly artificial avoidance scheme designed to frustrate legislation passed by Parliament in 1987 to prevent such avoidance does not work, and never has."

Direct quote from Parliament debate, July 15 1987:

“The Revenue tells me that few taxpayers claimed exemption before that court decision. It is estimated that more than 15,000 foreign partners could have claimed exemption, whereas to the best of the Revenue's knowledge, only three partnerships have done so. I stress that the double taxation agreement has been in existence since 1952. Therefore, during that period a large number of an admittedly restricted class of person—partners in foreign partnerships—have accepted the position and paid tax accordingly.”

“As the professional press has pointed out, leaving the clause unamended would lead to loopholes that would be much exploited. However, I appreciate that that is not the Committee's main concern”

Result - In 1987 Parliament stated the scope of the legislation, never made any suggestion of any wider meaning. The 1987 legislation was poorly formed is the truth. We were not partners in foreign parternships to quote Norman Lamont and Parliament never intended to address anything more than them. Fact, written into history and undone by BN66 as though it never happened. All via clarification. If you can find the word "Trusts" in the 1987 debate or legislation, please let me know as I cannot find one reference. I can find dozens of partner references though....

Storm clouds are gathering. It'll rain hard before long.

[nick4notax]

Direct quote from Parliament debate, May 15 2008:

"Jane Kennedy: A fundamental purpose of the clause is to put it beyond doubt that a wholly artificial avoidance scheme designed to frustrate legislation passed by Parliament in 1987 to prevent such avoidance does not work, and never has."

Direct quote from Parliament debate, July 15 1987:

“The Revenue tells me that few taxpayers claimed exemption before that court decision. It is estimated that more than 15,000 foreign partners could have claimed exemption, whereas to the best of the Revenue's knowledge, only three partnerships have done so. I stress that the double taxation agreement has been in existence since 1952. Therefore, during that period a large number of an admittedly restricted class of person—partners in foreign partnerships—have accepted the position and paid tax accordingly.”

“As the professional press has pointed out, leaving the clause unamended would lead to loopholes that would be much exploited. However, I appreciate that that is not the Committee's main concern”

Result - In 1987 Parliament stated the scope of the legislation, never made any suggestion of any wider meaning. The 1987 legislation was poorly formed is the truth. We were not partners in foreign parternships to quote Norman Lamont and Parliament never intended to address anything more than them. Fact, written into history and undone by BN66 as though it never happened. All via clarification. If you can find the word "Trusts" in the 1987 debate or legislation, please let me know as I cannot find one reference. I can find dozens of partner references though....

Storm clouds are gathering. It'll rain hard before long.

Is it not common knowledge that Labour lied through their teeth when they pushed BN66 through parliament though? Problem is we still have it now in law and we do not seem to be getting anywhere with persuading our dear parliamentarians to do anything more than sending nice letters to Gauke and co. Also Gauke is now actively defending the decision of the HC and CoA, which I find quite staggering. It's amazing that we do not seem to have a process where we can appeal to someone who would be minded to remove laws have have been passed using such blatant lies.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Is it not common knowledge that Labour lied through their teeth when they pushed BN66 through parliament though? Problem is we still have it now in law and we do not seem to be getting anywhere with persuading our dear parliamentarians to do anything more than sending nice letters to Gauke and co. Also Gauke is now actively defending the decision of the HC and CoA, which I find quite staggering. It's amazing that we do not seem to have a process where we can appeal to someone who would be minded to remove laws have have been passed using such blatant lies.

Don't we? A long time ago I posted with the subject - Speak softly and carry a big stick. I don't allegedly owe that much and I'm not here for my health or out of boredom. I'm here because I care and I know natural justice has been trodden on. If I didn't think there was a real chance or a line of genuine reason to apply I'd not have bothered with all of this.

But I am here and for good reason. If you think that all the "deep diving" was for fun think again (no hostility to you intended).

We have a Donald Rumsfeld moment - we know what we know...

Getting traction with this is painful but it takes more than sitting in a chair pushing buttons.

Do I really think we can beat this? Well I'd not be here posting if I thought we couldn't. I'm under no illusion but nor am I under any false pretence. And no, HMRC are not home and dry on this one -and they know it.