BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[DonkeyRhubarb]

This is a continuation of the previous thread:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...rt-appeal.html

Current State of Play
21st February 2011

The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal to both Montpelier and PwC. We are now waiting to hear what will happen next.


Various parties are challenging the retrospective element of Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008 (also known as BN66 - Budget Note 66).

Montpelier Case

Montpelier took a case for judicial review, based on Human Rights, to the High Court but the court ruled in favour of HMRC. They then appealed to the Court of Appeal, who upheld the judgment in favour of HMRC. Montpelier applied to appeal to the Supreme Court but permission was refused.

PwC Case

PwC's case is based on EU Treaty rather than HR. The case was heard at the same time as Montpelier's in the Court of Appeal and the court ruled in favour of HMRC. PwC applied to appeal to the Supreme Court but their application was also refused.

Steed/KPMG Case

Like Montpelier, they are challenging the legislation on Human Rights grounds, but have applied directly to the European Court of Human Rights instead of the UK courts.

Their application was submitted in January 2009. It was acknowledged in June 2009 but they are still waiting to hear if permission will be granted.

Accrued Interest Calculation

The following percentages are rough estimates as of December 2011 to be used as a guide only. Currently, interest* is accruing at 3% p.a.

Tax Year...........%
2001/2.............54
2002/3.............47
2003/4.............41
2004/5.............34
2005/6.............27
2006/7.............20
2007/8.............12

* HMRC charge bank base + 2.5%

Timelines

The following post charts the history of the scheme and all the key events leading up to BN66.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1453032

[DonkeyRhubarb]

... and while we are on the subject, would I be right to assume that even in the worst case that HMRC eventually win and I'm forced to sell the house, they can only get their gruby hands on my half of the equity? Or is it not as simple as that?

Yes it's as simple as that. This is your personal liability not your other half's.

The same applies to any savings or investments held in joint names. HMRC can only stake a claim on your half.

[patbikeruk]

Got another CN this morning........ They must know it is holiday time

Got my 2nd CN luckily was a little less than I feared.......

But still their timing is great just as the kids break up for holiday and usually before Christmas....

They are a bunch of heartless W*&%$%S

Spoke with MP all sorted. They also said the this was unrelated to Mondays hearing.

[OnYourBikeGB]

For my penny's worth, the only decision that matters in this case is the final one. the judgement on Mobday could well turn out to be almost irrelevant. What we are going to gain is knowledge. I still believe that any judgement that took this long to reach cannot be watertight for either side. There will be contention. What we will hopefully gain is insight into how the legal system views us and more importantly how it views the behaviour of HMRC.

The length of time has been critical. This is our best opportunity to identify our enemy's weaknesses. Unless MP throw in the towel, and I don't believe for a second they are about to, Monday is something to look forward to, albeit a bit nervously.

[smalldog]

Got my 2nd CN luckily was a little less than I feared.......

But still their timing is great just as the kids break up for holiday and usually before Christmas....

They are a bunch of heartless W*&%$%S

Spoke with MP all sorted. They also said the this was unrelated to Mondays hearing.

they are vindictive and evil, they try and inflict the maximum amount of physcological damage as possible.

They are pretty much the only institution I know that seems to take something to such a personal rather than purely business level.

[SantaClaus]

they are vindictive and evil, they try and inflict the maximum amount of physcological damage as possible.

They are pretty much the only institution I know that seems to take something to such a personal rather than purely business level.

Can you imagine the sort of personality test they must use for HMRC recruitment?

They must take a standard test and invert all the answers for the ideal candidate.

[RingStinger]

Yes it's as simple as that. This is your personal liability not your other half's.

The same applies to any savings or investments held in joint names. HMRC can only stake a claim on your half.

Thats an interesting point. Would that also work for the proceeds of a voluntary sale (i.e. not forced by HMRC, but decided to sell to attempt to pay the liability) if you could prove the house was in joint ownership?

Don't want to be thinking about such things to be honest, but it makes me feel slightly easier if this is the case.

[nuffsaid]

DR,
could you copy over the "Current State Of Play" from post 1 of the previous thread? I think it's useful.
Ta

[smalldog]

Thats an interesting point. Would that also work for the proceeds of a voluntary sale (i.e. not forced by HMRC, but decided to sell to attempt to pay the liability) if you could prove the house was in joint ownership?

Don't want to be thinking about such things to be honest, but it makes me feel slightly easier if this is the case.

voluntary or involuntary makes no difference. If an asset is owned jointly then the proceeds of the sale are jointly owned whether you voluntarily sell it or otherwise.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

The Secret of Oz

Have you ever wondered what lies behind the story of the Wizard of Oz? Well, whilst it may seem off topic, if you've got a couple of hours to kill between now and Monday, I suggest you watch this:

‪The Secret of Oz - Winner, Best Docu of 2010 v.1.09.11‬‏ - YouTube

A rather absorbing and revealing account of why the UK and other countries are in the financial mess they are in today. Whilst not directly related to our case, you can see how if what this video covers was applied to our Treasury, then the whole tax issues that include the introduction of IR35 could be avoided and perhaps there would be no need for the Tax Planning that exists today. Either way, I found it a facinating watch.

If you're into Monetary Policy and its history as I am then you'll not want to stop watching even for a pee. But as a history lesson on money, tax, banks and debt it's well worth spending the time.

The link between the history of US monetary policy in the late 1800's and the Wizard of Oz is sublime. I've checked much of it out and there's little to counteract it. So when you're kids say they loved the Wizard of Oz, you might want to suggest to them that it fortold of an event in US history that came about again in the Credit Crunch. So not such a happy film after all...

Anyways, take your choice, but stick with it if you do watch it. A glass of vino is worth having to hand as well as the phone off.