Originally posted by stuffed
View Post
The second just highlights the BS that has been banded about to make this happen:
"Public interest
In Huitson, the judge referred to the unfairness of having a few citizens escaping income tax, which is at the core of the UK tax system."
- Huitson did not escape income tax. He paid it. There are many ways to minimise your tax liabilities. Huitson chose this one. The line is the law and that is the difference between legal tax planning and evasion.
"The taxpayers "should have known"
In Huitson, the Court of Appeal referred to the fact that HMRC had repeatedly warned the taxpayers that the scheme did not work and had recommended that the tax be paid upfront. The court also pointed out that HMRC had not been under any obligation to test the efficacy of the scheme in proceedings before the legislation was changed."
- The arrangement ran from 2001 to early 2008. Fully disclosed Self Assessments were accepted. HMRC told users they did not accept the arrangements mid 2007. They were notified of the reason for not accepting it in Feb 2008. Hmmm.
"The taxpayers were aggressively thwarting the intention of Parliament
In Huitson, the Court of Appeal pointed out that the claimants' artificial arrangements were in "plain contravention" of the public policy aim of the legislation."
- The arrangement was used to give those taxpayers certainty (well, unless you are aware that unannounced retrospection can be used!). The alternative was an extremely uncertain world with IR35. I find the concept of determining the "intention of parliament" very odd. Either it is legal, and worded as such, or not. Besides, as has been mentioned before, Lord Lamonts comments in 1987 that the loophole would be left open but is not the committees main concern almost sells the arrangement ! Quite opposite from being in plain contravention of their intention.
Still amazed this is allowed to carry on.
Comment