UK HMRC Corporation Tax Time Bomb

[northernladyuk]

Don't panic! HMRC can retrospectively change the law and nothing will have to be repaid.

HMRC doesn't have legislative powers. UK parliament, however, can and should change the law retrospectively. Th UK needs that cash to pay its bar bill.

[BrilloPad]

HMRC doesn't have legislative powers. UK parliament, however, can and should change the law retrospectively. Th UK needs that cash to pay its bar bill.

HMRC tells parliament what to do. It would be good to change the law retrospectively - the outcry would then make retrospective laws illegal(they are only legal in 5 countries anyway).

UK will settle its bar bill. There will be a huge disagreement over what was ordered.

[northernladyuk]

HMRC tells parliament what to do. It would be good to change the law retrospectively - the outcry would then make retrospective laws illegal(they are only legal in 5 countries anyway).

UK will settle its bar bill. There will be a huge disagreement over what was ordered.

HMRC has no authority over parliament but it can advise parliament.

Because the UK has no written constitution, retrospective laws cannot effectively be made illegal in the UK.

[OwlHoot]

Because the UK has no written constitution, retrospective laws cannot effectively be made illegal in the UK.

Section 7 of the Human Rights Act (1998), and plain common sense, prohibits UK criminal law being applied retrospectively except where these were established international laws at the time of the offence (e.g. "war crimes").

But I doubt if that applies in civil cases, such as tax disputes, especially as HMR&C have themselves established more than one precedent of retrospective taxation in their favour, the mupps!

[AtW]

UK parliament has primacy over EU rules and always has done. Assertion of that primacy may be in conflict with the terms of membership of the EU, but that does not negate the primacy. And what are they gonna do anyway?

If UK Parliament starts confiscating property of big multinational businesses then they would not just roll over and take one for the team...

[northernladyuk]

Section 7 of the Human Rights Act (1998), and plain common sense, prohibits UK criminal law being applied retrospectively except where these were established international laws at the time of the offence (e.g. "war crimes").

But I doubt if that applies in civil cases, such as tax disputes, especially as HMR&C have themselves established more than one precedent of retrospective taxation in their favour, the mupps!

Any new law can assert its primacy over a previous law, so the Human Rights Act cannot bind future parliaments.

Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.

htts://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

But yes, we are talking about civil law.

[GJABS]

Do you believe that statement is true? If so, why bother with the court case. Wouldn't it be sensible for the UK to just borrow the money and donate it to the big corporations in the form of a CT rebate?

No it's not true. But then lefties and other assorted idiots have never had truth very high up on their list of priorities.

[northernladyuk]

No it's not true. But then lefties and other assorted idiots have never had truth very high up on their list of priorities.

Jesus wept.

[darmstadt]

Section 7 of the Human Rights Act (1998), and plain common sense, prohibits UK criminal law being applied retrospectively except where these were established international laws at the time of the offence (e.g. "war crimes").

But I doubt if that applies in civil cases, such as tax disputes, especially as HMR&C have themselves established more than one precedent of retrospective taxation in their favour, the mupps!

Is that the one the Brexiters want to get rid of...

[OwlHoot]

Is that the one the Brexiters want to get rid of...

Hehe. I thought someone would spot that! But I did add "plain common sense" or, to use a high falutin phrase, "natural justice".

There would be a big outcry, and rightly so, if any Parliament tried to apply adverse changes in criminal law retrospectively. Even with kiddy fiddlers and sex pests the courts are careful to use sentencing guidelines that applied at the time of the offence(s).

Even doing so for civil law it is highly objectionable, because in a civilized and complex society people and companies need to know where they stand.