What's the big deal with BN66?

[Pondlife]

This does sound a lot like MPs defending expense claims to me.

Sorry about the judgement though.

[BolshieBastard]

This does sound a lot like MPs defending expense claims to me.

Sorry about the judgement though.

I tired to give a perspective of someone on the scheme seeing as this thread is called 'what's the big deal with BN66.'

Have to say, Im not surprised by some of the illinformed comments here but there you go.

Although Im defending the scheme, I think people now need to be aware BN66 is shifting the whole emphasis of taxation in this country and it has the potential to affect everyone either by making them pay more tax, changing what was legal to be illegal and, changing taxation based on statute to that based purely on HMRC's interpretation of tax statute, not the letter of the law. you can also add in taxing the population by the 'fair share' principle again, rather than what statute says.

Take for example income shifting. How many contractors denouncing the IoM scheme engage in income shifting, paying one half of their ltd co's dividend to their none contract spouse to lessen their tax?

HMRC wanted to bring in S660 a few years back ie it (income shifting) is still a perfectly legal thing for us to do. Suppose in the next Parliament, HMRC get retrospective legislation enacted to introduce S660 back dated 8 years.

How many of you would be saying 'serves you right, you knew income shifting was dodgey \ cheating \ you were warned it was against HMRC policy'?

Of course some illinformed posters will say this is a rant. I dont think it is. But when you know HMRC now has powers to obtain from your accountant the tax advice \ planning he \ she has given you, you just know the landscape is changing.

Look, if people want to pay all their taxes in accordance with both the spirit of the law and what the law actually says, that's up to them. But it is in tax law than one can legally plan one's tax affairs so as to minimise the amount of tax one pays. This principle is being eroded by HMRC today, right now.

One illinformed poster in this thread insinuates everyone on the IoM scheme only paid 3.5% tax instead of 40%. First, this presupposes that everyone on the scheme was a higher rate tax payer. Not so. Second, the majority of people on the IoM scheme would have had a tax percentage much higher than 3.5%.

[Mich the Tester]

One illinformed poster in this thread

In his particular case, your description is a contender for the world understatement championships.

[sasguru]

Ah, but if you had enough grey matter you wouldn’t live in the UK under a Labour government.

If you had enough matter you'd get rich by expoliting the various bubbles that NL have caused.

[AtW]

Second, the majority of people on the IoM scheme would have had a tax percentage much higher than 3.5%.

How much did you pay?

[normalbloke]

In his particular case, your description is a contender for the world understatement championships.

BB.. its no good continuing to feed these trolls. They have no idea of the bigger picture of what will happen. AtW especially sounds the sort of person that asks "How high" when HMRC ask him to jump. Then rolls over when they up the rate to 60%. and pays them back tax for the last 30 years. He and others like him, will be sorry in the long run, believe me. Retrospection will be here to stay if we don't speak out and fight against it now. But, we are wasting our time trying to make people see it here.

[BolshieBastard]

BB.. its no good continuing to feed these trolls. They have no idea of the bigger picture of what will happen. AtW especially sounds the sort of person that asks "How high" when HMRC ask him to jump. Then rolls over when they up the rate to 60%. and pays them back tax for the last 30 years. He and others like him, will be sorry in the long run, believe me. Retrospection will be here to stay if we don't speak out and fight against it now. But, we are wasting our time trying to make people see it here.

To be fair NB, I think there are some fair minded people about who genuinely dont understand the wider implications of BN66 and want to know more information.

But you are right, there are some like AtW and the burke who's bothered about his pcg subscription (if he thinks that all he has to worry about I truely pity him) who will end up being shafted by HMRC even though they think they have the moral high ground now.

[Incognito]

My God, I have had my fill of armchair lawyers weaned on Ally McBeal.

Starting my third year now of my LL.B with the OU. It's just my interpretation though, I'm not the one deciding it in the end.

As I said, it appears what's written in the statute books no longer applies - opinion is the new legislative weapon of choice.

Reading throught your earlier posts, your avatar neatly sums up what you are saying. Learn the facts.

The facts for you:

The terms common law system and civil law system are used to distinguish two distinct legal systems and approaches to law. The use of the term ‘common law’ in this context refers to all those legal systems which have adopted the historic English legal system.......The term ‘civil law’ refers to those other jurisdictions which have adopted the European continental system of law derived essentially from ancient Roman law, but owing much to the Germanic tradition.

The usual distinction to be made between the two systems is that the common law system tends to be case-centred and hence judge-centred, allowing scope for a discretionary, pragmatic approach to the particular problems that appear before the courts. The law can be developed on a case-by-case basis. On the other hand, the civil law system tends to be a codified body of general abstract principles which control the exercise of judicial discretion.

http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/reso....php?id=208934

I suggest you have a read of this as well, Statutory interpretation, in particular the sections on the Mischief Rule and the Purposive Approach. Denning, in particular, was an advocate of moulding the law to ensure justice was seen to be done. As I've stated before, it's not HMRC's or MontP's or the Bn66 thread members or even my interpretation that matters, however as this is my post the way I see it you're up 5hit creek without a paddle. However you dress it up the scheme was thought up to exploit the loophole that the legislation was meant to be plugging.

And please, ISA's? ISA's are a legitimate method of tax planning and before you say your scheme was, that's not what the courts say.

And there's no troll's here mate, you don't like what we're saying then fine, don't reply to our posts. I have no interest in posting in the Bn66 thread as I am not involved in your case. This is general though.

But you are right, there are some like AtW and the burke who's bothered about his pcg subscription (if he thinks that all he has to worry about I truely pity him) who will end up being shafted by HMRC even though they think they have the moral high ground now.

I don't think I hold the moral high ground at all sunshine. What I do think is you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar and now you're screaming about how it's not fair. You want sympathy? It's in the dictionary go look it up. You made your bed and now you lie in it.

I've said before it doesn't bother me in the slightest if you win or lose, I will take no joy in people I don't know being made bankrupt or losing their home, but what does get right up my nose is you're trying to blame everyone else when the only person to blame was you and your own greed. If you pull it off, then fair play to you, you took the gamble and won. If you lose though, you've no-one to blame but yourself.

[BolshieBastard]

And there's no troll's here mate, you don't like what we're saying then fine, don't reply to our posts. I have no interest in posting in the Bn66 thread as I am not involved in your case. This is general though.

I don't think I hold the moral high ground at all sunshine. What I do think is you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar and now you're screaming about how it's not fair. You want sympathy? It's in the dictionary go look it up. You made your bed and now you lie in it.

I've said before it doesn't bother me in the slightest if you win or lose, I will take no joy in people I don't know being made bankrupt or losing their home, but what does get right up my nose is you're trying to blame everyone else when the only person to blame was you and your own greed. If you pull it off, then fair play to you, you took the gamble and won. If you lose though, you've no-one to blame but yourself.

Haha. I hope you dont use that tone with any clients.

Let's address some facts here shall we?

This thread was started by someone asking 'What's the big deal with the BN66 thread?' So for a start, I'd suggest you drop the bit about who should post here and who should not.

I dont really care if you want to play at being a lawyer. Via MP we have eminent lawyers who disagree with your opinion. So if you want a pissing competition, I think you lose by a long way.

It sounds very much to me that you do in fact try and take the moral high ground when you drone on about being 'caught with your hand in the cookie jar.' Who's looking for sympathy? Certainly not me.

As I said, I actually posted here to give a perspective on the thread title.

As for blaming everyone else, **** me, if you are supposed to be gaining qualification as some form of legal expert, I hope you get your facts straight when you eventually do present a case.

And yes, iSA are perfectly legal now and perhaps normalbloke if it was he who used that example may have been better using something else.

Something like S660 say. Income shifting is currently perfectly legal. But does it pass the fair share concept of taxation? Does the concept of income shifting pass your tests statutory interpretation, the mischief rule and purposive approach?

Perhaps these dont even apply, I dont know. I dont pretend to be a lawyer. However, its not beyond reason that HMRC could retrospectively have S660 enacted.

As I said, the legality or otherwise of the IoM scheme is now almost irrelevant. The issue now with BN66 is the retrospective avenue it opens for HMRC.

The learned judge in our case also suggestted the IoM scheme did work and was therefore legal. And I'd say he was a better legal expert than you.

However, his judgement has opened up the threat that taxation now be based on social policy and not what tax statute says.

I'd say you need to re examine your approach on this subject and quickly.

[AtW]

However, his judgement has opened up the threat that taxation now be based on social policy and not what tax statute says.

Look, ignoramus, if someone uses clever tricks to pay tax at 3.5% (number quoted by the judge - if you don't like it then next time support someone who paid more tax) where as others have to pay 10+ times more then it has nothing to do with "social policy" - it's about making sure cheats don't skew the tax system so much as it would collapse.

What would be the VAT rate if everyone in the UK paid 3.5% income tax rate? 30%? 40%? It just can't be ****** right when some "clever" people end up paying 3.5% on income tax where as others have to pay 20-40%+.