Those affected by BN66

[Arturo Bassick]

Erm, if you feel a need to 'clarify', that implies that something was not clear. Something which is not clear is obviously open to diverse interpretations. I'm interested to hear how any one of those interpretations can be termed 'artificial' by the very people who admitted a lack of clarity by the act of clarifying.

I am not a legal expert but I sense there's a problem in the way HMRC use the English language; they're contradicting themselves here.

I hope you remember that when your kids say "but Dad, you said......."

[BrilloPad]

Erm, if you feel a need to 'clarify', that implies that something was not clear. Something which is not clear is obviously open to diverse interpretations. I'm interested to hear how any one of those interpretations can be termed 'artificial' by the very people who admitted a lack of clarity by the act of clarifying.

I am not a legal expert but I sense there's a problem in the way HMRC use the English language; they're contradicting themselves here.

Indeed. And shouldn't it up to the courts to clarify?

[BrilloPad]

I hope you remember that when your kids say "but Dad, you said......."

Would you like it if the tax rate for 2010/2011 was updated retrospectively? Worse than destrying the lives of 200 people it puts foreign companies off investing in the UK as they do not know what they are getting into.

[BrilloPad]

And believe the 'exclusivity' patter of salesmen.

They must have got a bit of a shock when they discovered that they were one of 3000 punters as opposed to the 300 touted in the sales pitch.

I believev some of the early joiners were told the scheme was to be limited to 500. But as DR pointed out the scheme was declared on tax returns and irrespective of numbers HMRC would have taken the same route anyway.

[BrilloPad]

No, I am just asking the question of how these guys came to believe that their UK earnings could ever become the benefits of an off shore trust fund?

Plenty of rich people and companies do it. Why should the little guys not do it too?

There was a loophole else HMRC would have pushed through their original 4 test cases.

[Arturo Bassick]

Would you like it if the tax rate for 2010/2011 was updated retrospectively? Worse than destrying the lives of 200 people it puts foreign companies off investing in the UK as they do not know what they are getting into.

That is a straw man argument. The tax rate is not open to interpretation so could not be retrospectively clarified. I just want to know if the original legislation was clear before HMRC issued BN66, to see if in fact those caught are relying on an artificial or perverse interpretation of the original legislation. I am assuming that all those challenging BN66 have read and understood the original legislation.

[Arturo Bassick]

Plenty of rich people and companies do it. Why should the little guys not do it too?

There was a loophole else HMRC would have pushed through their original 4 test cases.

If it were that simple then every single business trading in the UK would have been set up in the same way, thus avoiding millions in ENI.

[BrilloPad]

That is a straw man argument. The tax rate is not open to interpretation so could not be retrospectively clarified. I just want to know if the original legislation was clear before HMRC issued BN66, to see if in fact those caught are relying on an artificial or perverse interpretation of the original legislation. I am assuming that all those challenging BN66 have read and understood the original legislation.

Just to be clear that the government issued BN66 not HMRC. I have ben back through the bn66 threads and there are links to the 2008 legislation but they all seem to be broken now.

As some have noted there are probably less than 100 people who are qualified to decide if we are relying on an artificial or perverse interpretation of the original legislation.

[Arturo Bassick]

Just to be clear that the government issued BN66 not HMRC. I have ben back through the bn66 threads and there are links to the 2008 legislation but they all seem to be broken now.

As some have noted there are probably less than 100 people who are qualified to decide if we are relying on an artificial or perverse interpretation of the original legislation.

The 2008 bit is reasonably easy to find http://www.bn66.co.uk/bn66.pdf it is the original 1987 legislation I was interested in.

[TalkingCheese]

Finance Act 1987

The 2008 bit is reasonably easy to find http://www.bn66.co.uk/bn66.pdf it is the original 1987 legislation I was interested in.

Finance (No. 2) Act 1987