BN66; what the hell is going on over there?

[Mich the Tester]

42.26% Lib Dem
40.87% Labour
10.36% Tory

Lib Dem then, and tell all your friends to do the same.

[chef]

and there are figures of 300k etc. that some would be due to "owe" to HMRC if they ultimately lose.. that even made my stomach churn.

[b0redom]

I can't be arsed to trawl through the BN66 thread. Are you saying that if the Tories got in they've promised to drop the BN66 case? Not taking the piss, I genuinely don't know....

[Iron Condor]

Now then, seeing as I live in Euroland and am subject to a different Soviet tax regime, I don’t really know the details, but I do know that the UK government have set up retrospective legislation to close a ‘loophole’ that existed since 1987 and lots of people are now confronted with enormous tax bills they never expected to receive.

This is what the judge said.

Parliament was also entitled, having regard to the background that I have set out, to legislate with retrospective effect, particularly in order to ensure a "fair balance" between the interests of the great body of resident taxpayers who paid income tax on their income from a trade or profession in the normal way, and the taxpayers, like the Claimant, who had sought to exploit, by artificial arrangements, the DTA, in plain contravention of the important public policy set out above, and in full knowledge of how Parliament had maintained that public policy after Padmore (1987).

[Mich the Tester]

I can't be arsed to trawl through the BN66 thread. Are you saying that if the Tories got in they've promised to drop the BN66 case? Not taking the piss, I genuinely don't know....

No, it isn’t the point. You need a government that understands business, and understands small businesses. Labour like retrospective taxes because they open up new boxes of money they can spend on Lesbian Muslim Amputee Adoption Liaison Officers and big expensive wars. They need to be taught a lesson. The objective for British voters should be to inflict maximum possible damage to Labour, and send the message to all parties that if you f**k up the British economy, lie to people about the cause for wars, cover up the details of government advisors who died in suspicious circumstances, walk all over people’s civil liberties and then leave the country bankrupt, your political party and movement will be ruined.

[Mich the Tester]

This is what the judge said.

Parliament was also entitled, having regard to the background that I have set out, to legislate with retrospective effect, particularly in order to ensure a "fair balance" between the interests of the great body of resident taxpayers who paid income tax on their income from a trade or profession in the normal way, and the taxpayers, like the Claimant, who had sought to exploit, by artificial arrangements, the DTA, in plain contravention of the important public policy set out above, and in full knowledge of how Parliament had maintained that public policy after Padmore (1987).

'Entitled' does not equal 'sensible'.

[Iron Condor]

'Entitled' does not equal 'sensible'.

If the taxpayer is not going to be sensible they dont deserve sense in return.

Artificial arrangements for avoiding tax are not sensible in my opinion.

[AtW]

'Entitled' does not equal 'sensible'.

What was the total amount of tax actually paid in these arrangements vs what would have normally been?

[Mich the Tester]

If the taxpayer is not going to be sensible they dont deserve sense in return.

Artificial arrangements for avoiding tax are not sensible in my opinion.

Ah, you see you’ve used the word ‘avoiding’. Avoiding tax is legal; evading tax isn’t.

[Mich the Tester]

What was the total amount of tax actually paid in these arrangements vs what would have normally been?

Don't know, don't care. My point is about the retrospective nature of this. It isn't the first time. I seem to recall Labour suddenly slapped a windfall tax on the profits of oil companies. They're getting the UK a bad reputation.