What's the big deal with BN66?

[Mich the Tester]

Got it in one.

I don't agree with the scheme. However I also disagree with what HMRC are trying to do.

That’s my position too. The scheme was wrong-headed. Stopping it and closing the loophole is right. Retrospective application of a new interpretation (or ‘clarification’, in New Liebore speak) is wrong, and is a very dangerous step.

[Incognito]

That’s my position too. The scheme was wrong-headed. Stopping it and closing the loophole is right. Retrospective application of a new interpretation (or ‘clarification’, in New Liebore speak) is wrong, and is a very dangerous step.

Retrospective clarification on tax laws is nothing new in British legislation. Much that I detest NL, this is not their invention.

[Andy2]

That's your opinion.

The judge clearly disagreed - I've read the text of the judgement and it's pretty well written, IANAL and maybe judge is wrong on some bits, I can't be certain on that. But what I am certain is that people who reduce their tax from 40% to 3.5% by using offshore scheme should not expect to get away with it.

they should have known it's simply not possible to reduce your tax from 40% to 3.5%, unless you are a multi-millionaire with offshore arrangements

[AtW]

Nothing trolling about it muttley, trolling would be going onto the BN66 thread and getting involved there. I have not and neither has AtW. this is general though and this is all very simple

Indeed - I stay out of other parts of the forum unless I've got serious question there, I stay out of BN66 thread there as well - people are certainly not very happy there and I don't want to add more salt to their problems.

I actually thought BN66 was about "income shifting" until today I read all the details.

[TykeMerc]

I don't agree with the scheme. However I also disagree with what HMRC are trying to do.

Precisely my view.

The scheme might have been dodgy or even taking the p1$$, but it's up to HMG to make good tax law.
It's reasonable that a UK taxpayer can have reasonable certainty that they're behaving according to the prevailing law.
HMG inventing a time machine removes that certainty and is offensive to any sense of natural justice. It also sets a very dangerous precedent.

[Churchill]

they should have known it's simply not possible to reduce your tax from 40% to 3.5%, unless you are a multi-millionaire with offshore arrangements

As the individuals involved were not in a position individually to set up such arrangements, what is/was wrong with an organisation that sees a possible service by pooling such like minded individuals resources and putting in place these facilities - for a fee of course...

[AtW]

they should have known it's simply not possible to reduce your tax from 40% to 3.5%, unless you are a multi-millionaire with offshore arrangements

Exactly - big companies can get away with this, probably barely - small guys just should have never assumed they can do the same and get away with it, it's actually at this level that Govts usually fight evasion real seriously.

[NotAllThere]

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

So that's you, me... and Threaded!?!

[AtW]

So that's you, me... and Threaded!?!

Also HAB, watch out he may be in the same country with you...

[cojak]

At least it's kept the "I'm looking at a scheme that lets me keep >90% of my income Pocketandrun.com - has anyone got anything good to say about it?" trolls quiet today.