What's the big deal with BN66?

[Incognito]

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

You're not my client

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'm not suggesting you shouldn't post here, I'm suggesting NB quit claiming we're trolling by posting in this thread. By all means feel free to post here, it may benefit you to get an objective view on your case.

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.

Face it, the only certainty is that your eminent lawyers will still be getting paid, win or lose. Of course they disagree with my opinion, they're getting paid to. As I said before, everything I'm posting is simply my own observations, no pissing contest.

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.

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

No he didn't, because if it worked then s.58 would have been a change and not a clarification and you would have won your case. You are just repeating what you've been told by other people who most probably don't understand it either and are just repeating what they've been told.

[AtW]

You are just repeating what you've been told by other people who most probably don't understand it either and are just repeating what they've been told.

He can't be objective because he can lose a lot of money from one decision and keep from another. He'd argue black is white and vise versa if so much dosh is at stake, nothing surprising there.

I personally would have hated to be in such crap position - this is why I try to stay away from things that can put me into it. I guess it helps that I am not a greedy person.

[normalbloke]

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..

Oooh...if there was a handbag icon I'd be using it. So you're not a qualified lawyer then? Right. That's cleared that up. I hope to God you don't end up representing anyone in a Tax case.

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.

Point of Information. The actual scheme never got to court in 7 years. HMRC came up with several vague opinions during that time but never got close to any detailed reasoning. Then they 'clarified' the law. If you read what they actually clarified you'd see it was a change. That's bad enough. Then they backdated it 7 years. So whatever you or your morally outraged friends say, until the law was changed in s58 2008 Finance Act it was never proven I broke any law. In fact I was only in the scheme just over a year... until 2003. So in my view I broke no law. However the Time Machine now says I did, and thats what I am arguing against here. That is the 'Big deal with BN66' if only you could rid yourself of your blindness caused by moral indignation.

The Judicial Review wasn't about whether the scheme worked. Have you actually gathered that yet? So its never actually gone to court on that... it may do so, depending on what happens in current litigation.

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.

Maybe you should at least read through the BN66 thread if you are going to comment on BN66. Being a trainee lawyer, my advice to you is to read as much about the topic you are going to talk about, before you speak. Otherwise you may be accused of talking through the crack of your ar*se.

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 never said I want sympathy. I couldn't give a flying fsck about your morals or opinions, but am trying to make people see its a bigger issue than me and the scheme.

I've said before it doesn't bother me in the slightest if you win or lose,

Well it should - see above, its a bigger issue.

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.

Ho hum... what was that about you not owning the moral high ground?

[Incognito]

Oooh...if there was a handbag icon I'd be using it. So you're not a qualified lawyer then? Right. That's cleared that up. I hope to God you don't end up representing anyone in a Tax case.

Well as long as there's plenty of thick buggers like you about getting caught up in dubious schemes then I might just find work in that field.

Point of Information. The actual scheme never got to court in 7 years. HMRC came up with several vague opinions during that time but never got close to any detailed reasoning....

The Judicial Review wasn't about whether the scheme worked. Have you actually gathered that yet? So its never actually gone to court on that... it may do so, depending on what happens in current litigation.

Maybe you should at least read through the BN66 thread if you are going to comment on BN66. Being a trainee lawyer, my advice to you is to read as much about the topic you are going to talk about, before you speak. Otherwise you may be accused of talking through the crack of your ar*se.

Is this clear enough for you?

Whatever the true meaning of the DTA, there was a wider rationale in terms of public policy: UK residents should pay UK income tax on the profits of any trade or profession; and a DTA, intended to relieve from double taxation, should not be used as an instrument either to avoid all taxation or to reduce it to well below the level that would be applicable to the relevant income in the country of residence

How about this?

...in my view, the state was not obliged to test the matter first in the courts before enacting legislation, even with retrospective effect. The public policy was of such paramount importance that legislation was necessary in any event to put the position beyond all doubt and to maintain the relevant public policy

Or this?

At no time did HMRC indicate to affected taxpayers, including the Claimant, that they could safely rely upon the arrangements. On the contrary, HMRC consistently maintained that the arrangements did not work, and advised taxpayers to pay on account the income tax which HMRC said was properly due. Any prudent taxpayer who followed that advice would not now be prejudiced by the retrospective effect of the legislation

I'll spell it out for you, HE'S TELLING YOU THE SCHEME DIDN'T WORK. Now he may be right or he may be wrong, that's for the higher courts to decide, but as far as the JR went I'm quite content I've got a far superior grasp of your case than you have.

its a bigger issue

No it's not, IR35 is already adequate in what HMRC are trying to achieve. The only thing that hampers HMRC is the cost and time of an investigation and you can't legislate for that.

[malvolio]

Just as an aside, they didn't backdate by seven years, they backdated the change/clarification/whatever to the original 1986 (?) legislation. HMRC can only challenge your returns for this year and the six previous ones, hence seven years is what they're looking at. If they thought you were being fraudulent, they can go back as far as they want. Since they have't you might argue that they believe you hadn't deliberately broken any laws, merely misintepreted them.

But hey, what do I know...

[normalbloke]

Well as long as there's plenty of thick buggers like you about getting caught up in dubious schemes then I might just find work in that field...

When all else fails, resort to personal insults. And you're training to be an objective lawyer?...we really are dumbing down in this country aren't we?

I'll spell it out for you, HE'S TELLING YOU THE SCHEME DIDN'T WORK. Now he may be right or he may be wrong, that's for the higher courts to decide, but as far as the JR went I'm quite content I've got a far superior grasp of your case than you have..

Really? .. point 72 of the Judgment'''

"I would summarise the foregoing analysis as follows. The tax efficacy of the arrangements was far from clear cut. There were respectable arguments on both sides of the question. The rule in Archer-Shee has stood for a very substantial time: it was a powerful weapon in the hands of those relying on the arrangements. On the other hand, it appears to me that HMRC would have had strong purposive-based arguments that article 3(2) was not intended to apply to income received by a person behind the shelter of a trust, even if the income had its origins in the profits of a qualifying partnership, especially if the ultimate recipient of the income were not resident in the Isle of Man. Furthermore, the alternative possibility could not be ruled out that the courts would, for the purpose of anti-avoidance fiscal legislation, treat a person in the position of the Claimant as "a member of the firm" under section 858 of the 2005 Act. I do not believe that the outcome of any legal proceedings in respect of the arrangements would have been a foregone conclusion. They would, I believe, have been complex, protracted and costly.

So I do not believe that the outcome of any legal proceedings in respect of the arrangements would have been a foregone conclusion. = "HE'S TELLING YOU THE SCHEME DIDN'T WORK. "

Only a thick bugger would think that, surely not a 3rd year trainee lawyer?

Anyway, as its getting a personal, I'm really off this time. I've no wish to trade insults, far more interested in stopping retrospective legislation. Good Luck in your degree.

[normalbloke]

Just as an aside, they didn't backdate by seven years, they backdated the change/clarification/whatever to the original 1986 (?) legislation. HMRC can only challenge your returns for this year and the six previous ones, hence seven years is what they're looking at. If they thought you were being fraudulent, they can go back as far as they want. Since they have't you might argue that they believe you hadn't deliberately broken any laws, merely misintepreted them.

But hey, what do I know...

Yes, thanks... got a bit carried away Its the backdating that I have serious issues with... whether it be 7 years or 22.

[AtW]

Its the backdating that I have serious issues with...

But you won't have serious issues if whole of UK joined that "legit" scheme to cut down their tax levels to 3.5%?

[AtW]

Ho hum... what was that about you not owning the moral high ground?

Being not greedy isn't about morals, it's about risk management - greed gets people in deep trouble, if it looks too good to be true it probably isn't.

I can understand why really wealthy guys do it because they've got resources to manage long term litigation and even if they lose they probably won't be ruined.

[Mich the Tester]

bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla