BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

“Ridicule is the first and last argument of a fool”

Then don't ridicule folks here then...

Would love to chat more but my sock drawer needs re-arranging.

Love and respect to all corners of the Earth - and beyond though...

[swede]

Sorry, couldn't help myself

Of course, liable claims and the like should not be allowed.
And you cannot spell!

libel :-)

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

libel :-)

Not so fast, but well spotted. What I meant was what I wrote:

Liable | Define Liable at Dictionary.com

Not:

Libel | Define Libel at Dictionary.com

Which you're chuckling about. Just wanted to see if folks were paying attention. So go to the top of the class, even if it's for the completely wrong (t)reason.

Should have explained that if you actually read what the 1987 legislation means rather than what it says you cannot end up with BN66. Easy mistake to make though as you found out here.

[PlaneSailing]

Have you seen the letter he sent?

The letter to Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh - Telegraph

'Although presented as clarifications....'

'if tax law changes are made, they should not apply retroactively'

I'd laugh if it it wasn't so painfully serious.

Although the letter is dated 1st April.

Digging further into this, it looks like Vodafone's take
over upset the Indian Revenue because they used
a double taxation treaty. The result being that they
paid tax in the Caymen islands, which I guess has a
lower CGT rate than India.

The last budget in India restored the intention
of Parilament regarding double taxation treaties back to 1962
through a clarification.

Quite a few parallels here.

[OldITGit]

Oh Well

Not so fast, but well spotted. What I meant was what I wrote:

Liable | Define Liable at Dictionary.com

Not:

Libel | Define Libel at Dictionary.com

Which you're chuckling about. Just wanted to see if folks were paying attention. So go to the top of the class, even if it's for the completely wrong (t)reason.

That looks like the end of todays pleasantries and diversions. Just showed "in a smog" s posting to my family and said if I start exhibiting these symptoms as a result of BN66.....get me to a clinic in Switzerland PDQ

[Dieselpower]

Digging further into this, it looks like Vodafone's take
over upset the Indian Revenue because they used
a double taxation treaty. The result being that they
paid tax in the Caymen islands, which I guess has a
lower CGT rate than India.

The last budget in India restored the intention
of Parilament regarding double taxation treaties back to 1962
through a clarification.

Quite a few parallels here.

Yes thats very interesting thanks PS. Very similar to our case.

[PlaneSailing]

Digging further into this, it looks like Vodafone's take
over upset the Indian Revenue because they used
a double taxation treaty. The result being that they
paid tax in the Caymen islands, which I guess has a
lower CGT rate than India.

The last budget in India restored the intention
of Parilament regarding double taxation treaties back to 1962
through a clarification.

Quite a few parallels here.

And Vodafone are considering going to the UN about it!

[Dieselpower]

And Vodafone are considering going to the UN about it!

it helps us because the long list of people that signed that letter are heavy hitters (including the CBI) and hence our Gment needs to be aware that retro legislation without warning can cause people's faith in UK plc to evaporate. Financially, its a serious matter.

[moira under the stairs]

As long as said person doesn't demotivate people and derail the excellent campaigning effort of our members. That's where it becomes a concern.

I think we can give the majority of posters the benefit of being intelligent enough to determine what is and isn't worth the time in reading

[swede]

Not so fast, but well spotted. What I meant was what I wrote:

Liable | Define Liable at Dictionary.com

Not:

Libel | Define Libel at Dictionary.com

Which you're chuckling about. Just wanted to see if folks were paying attention. So go to the top of the class, even if it's for the completely wrong (t)reason.

Should have explained that if you actually read what the 1987 legislation means rather than what it says you cannot end up with BN66. Easy mistake to make though as you found out here.

i know you never make mistooks :-) my faith is now restored.