Those affected by BN66

[BrilloPad]

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.

I disagree. I would happily take my chances with the old wording - in fact 4 test cases were put forward and HMRC delayed.

But that has all become irrelevant now. The question is should the law be changed retrospectively? Remember that the scheme was disclosed on tax returns and HMRC were aware in 2001.

[Arturo Bassick]

Yep, and?

HMRC are as entitled to join in the dance.

[Gonzo]

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.

Yes. Of course the law used to be on the side of the citizen but that is being thrown away.

Do you want to see the back of the 'innocent until proven guilty' idea too?

[Arturo Bassick]

Yes. Of course the law used to be on the side of the citizen but that is being thrown away.

Do you want to see the back of the 'innocent until proven guilty' idea too?

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?

[Gonzo]

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?

I have followed it all the way through and always thought that it was taking the piss but HMRC were not able to close it down with the existing law as it stood, so as far as I am concerned it was legal at the time.

It required a retrospective 'clarification' of the law and that is a loss of a freedom, the principle of which I think you might all live to regret.

[Arturo Bassick]

I have followed it all the way through and always thought that it was taking the piss but HMRC were not able to close it down with the existing law as it stood, so as far as I am concerned it was legal at the time.

It required a retrospective 'clarification' of the law and that is a loss of a freedom, the principle of which I think you might all live to regret.

but HMRCs argument has always been that it only needed to clarify the legislation due to a deliberate and artificial interpretation in the first place. Does anybody have a copy of the legislation from 1987? (or whatever year it was) which was also retrospective I believe.

[eek]

but HMRCs argument has always been that it only needed to clarify the legislation due to a deliberate and artificial interpretation in the first place. Does anybody have a copy of the legislation from 1987? (or whatever year it was) which was also retrospective I believe.

I think the problem is that they were pushing the law and didn't realise that HMRC thought they had enoughl leeway from 1987 to allow them to retrospectively hit them.

[Gonzo]

but HMRCs argument has always been that it only needed to clarify the legislation due to a deliberate and artificial interpretation in the first place. Does anybody have a copy of the legislation from 1987? (or whatever year it was) which was also retrospective I believe.

It might have been a deliberate and artificial interpretation but how did it stack up when it was presented in front of the Judiciary to decide?

No-one objects to HMRC getting the law changed to close down the loophole, what is objectionable is HMRC claiming that they can back-date the rules to get the answer that they want.

[Mich the Tester]

but HMRCs argument has always been that it only needed to clarify the legislation due to a deliberate and artificial interpretation in the first place. Does anybody have a copy of the legislation from 1987? (or whatever year it was) which was also retrospective I believe.

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.

[cojak]

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?

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.