BN66; what the hell is going on over there?

[AtW]

[picky]

And just where did he say that?

In fact he said nothing nothing of the sort. The judge was not in any way ruling on the legality or otherwise of the scheme.

Good pick - he did not say it's illegal, probably to avoid defense lawyers to pick at his main decision, but I guess that follows from the fact that tax will need to be paid back? I suppose maybe there is legal distinction, but surely not practical.

[AtW]

I've done that already.

That's good, I presume here that's genuine new job creation rather than having yourself on a payroll.

[threaded]

How the hell can you compare this lot to the likes of Philip Green? He lives in Monaco for flips sake.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...agenews.uknews

He flies into work and then flies home. The BN66 lot certainty didn't make any pretence at living in the Isle of Man.

Yeah, lots of people say they live in Monaco. Reality is most rent quite small apartments, and even you lot would agree to the pokiness of them, we're talking abouts 40m2, and then a proper palace out back in France, oops a friend owns it and they're only visiting if anyone asks...

[ASB]

Good pick - he did not say it's illegal, probably to avoid defense lawyers to pick at his main decision, but I guess that follows from the fact that tax will need to be paid back? I suppose maybe there is legal distinction, but surely not practical.

I could be wrong but, in terms of going forward (for an affected person) they could:-

a) Accept the scheme does not work (this is STILL in fact untested) and resubmit tax returns and pay up (or otherwise accept the principle of the debt). Assuming of course that they have not received a closure notice.

b) Accept as above, accepting the closure notice [i.e. withdrawing their appeal against it]

c) Request determination under the TMA

d) Wait for HMRC to take their case to the commissioners.

I know you can read, so read the judgement carefully. In it you will actually see that the judge suggest that the outcome of an appeal to the commissioners - or indeed any further appeal to the courts as a result of this is far from certain. He accepted that the arguments as to whether the scheme worked were in fact persuasive.

Whether the scheme worked or not was not in fact being tested in any way. The applicant has not been ordered to pay the disputed taxes - though of course it seems fair to assume HMRC will put pressure on him to roll over.

Of course it is entirely possible I haven't got a clue what I'm taking about - but this was a judicial review to ascertain whether or not BN66 was compatible with the ECHR.

[AtW]

In it you will actually see that the judge suggest that the outcome of an appeal to the commissioners - or indeed any further appeal to the courts as a result of this is far from certain.

That's exactly where the judge is wrong - taxes and death are two most certain things