Those affected by BN66

[Arturo Bassick]

Yep, there's a conflict in my (and probably many others') minds between a)retrospective law changes are wrong b)they were idiots to think they'd get away with it

Now two wrongs shouldn't cancel each other out, but you only have to look at CUK to find many feel "getting what you deserve" is fine and dandy.

WHS.

[Gonzo]

I believe the tax man has always had the ability to completely ignore any scheme set up with the sole purpose of avoiding tax.

No, he has not. It is a recent turn of events.

The position always used to be that the law was the law and if the law was deficient it was up to the government to fix it. The citizens always used to have certainty under the law.

That's changed now and I don't think that people recognise all the implications of what is happening.

Its not my problem any more but only in so far as that I have moved to a place where the taxman has always had the power to ignore any structure that might be set up to minimise tax, but at least we know that in advance.

[oracleslave]

Personally I think it provides valuable insight into how the general public will feel if our case becomes public.

WHS. If you can't convince your peers, with Joe Public there is no chance.

[TalkingCheese]

Clarification

...It only required clarification ...

Been done to death. Started prior to the courts as clarification. Was very quickly identified as retrospection.

[TalkingCheese]

WHS. If you can't convince your peers, with Joe Public there is no chance.

:-(

[Churchill]

Due to recent "Press" reporting I'm not sure if "Joe Public" knows what the difference is between "Avoidance" and "Evasion"...

The answer is (or used to be) "15 years"...

[Arturo Bassick]

Been done to death. Started prior to the courts as clarification. Was very quickly identified as retrospection.

I will take your word on that, but an awful lot of this case is based on some fairly fancy legal tap dancing with the wording of legislation.

[TalkingCheese]

Agreed

I will take your word on that, but an awful lot of this case is based on some fairly fancy legal tap dancing with the wording of legislation.

Yeah, but unfortunately the precedent is clear.

[Churchill]

I will take your word on that, but an awful lot of this case is based on some fairly fancy legal tap dancing with the wording of legislation.

Yep, and?

[DodgyAgent]

Those who voted that we're tax dodgers, remember the phrase "what goes around, comes around".