Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella
View Post
The Court of Appeal ruled on the basis that the purpose of the scheme was to obtain a tax advantage and that it misused legislation in a way that was not intended, and it was therefore in the public interest to legislate with retrospective effect.
The ruling could therefore be used to justify closing any tax avoidance scheme with retrospective effect.
Surely, if BN66 was in the public interest, it would be in the public interest to apply the same treatment to all tax avoidance schemes.
If the Supreme Court upholds the CoA it would be pointless for promoters of other schemes to challenge retrospection legislation in the courts on human rights grounds.
The Government could then introduce retrospective legislation without any fear of judicial scrutiny.
Comment