Those affected by BN66

[fullyautomatix]

And for all those contracting and not paying full tax considered "fair" in the current climate who voted tax dodgers it's hypocritical and watch ur backs. It's the thin end of the wedge and nobody's safe.

Why do you think nobody's safe ? If you are in the top earning bracket and pay the top rate of tax what is there to worry about ? I pay the top rate, dont dodge any tax, dont use any scheme to avoid any tax and hence I go to bed every night safe in the knowledge that I will never be targetted by HMRC.

You on the other hand tried to cheat the government out of the tax due by trying to get away with just 3% tax instead of the top rate. Call it stupid or naive, either way you thought you had access to some secret money saving scheme. Dont try to put the fear of government changing legislation into me, they will have plenty of targets like you to first deal with before they come to me.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

1987 legislation

This is the debate on Clause 62 from Hansard. It isn't very long but you have to read it all the way through to appreciate what was intended at the time.

UNITED KINGDOM MEMBERS OF PARTNERSHIPS CONTROLLED ABROAD (Hansard, 15 July 1987)

This quote from the then Financial Secretary Norman Lamont turned out to be very prophetic:

"As the professional press has pointed out, leaving the clause unamended would lead to loopholes that would be much exploited. However, I appreciate that that is not the Committee's main concern."

They were fully aware at the time that Clause 62 would leave loopholes but that was not their concern. Their only objective was to stop taxpayers making windfall claims in light of the Padmore case.

[Arturo Bassick]

This is the debate on Clause 62 from Hansard. It isn't very long but you have to read it all the way through to appreciate what was intended at the time.

UNITED KINGDOM MEMBERS OF PARTNERSHIPS CONTROLLED ABROAD (Hansard, 15 July 1987)

This quote from the then Financial Secretary Norman Lamont turned out to be very prophetic:

"As the professional press has pointed out, leaving the clause unamended would lead to loopholes that would be much exploited. However, I appreciate that that is not the Committee's main concern."

They were fully aware at the time that Clause 62 would leave loopholes but that was not their concern. Their only objective was to stop taxpayers making windfall claims in light of the Padmore case.

How does your set up get round this again? http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...on/739/enacted It would seem to me that if HMRC lose on the BN66 argument they still have this to fall back on.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Another quote from Norman Lamont:

"The type of retrospection on which the House has normally looked with disfavour is where the law is changed retrospectively so that people find themselves faced with unexpected and unprovided for tax liabiliies for past years. In this instance, retrospection is somewhat different."

If you read the debate you will understand why it was different.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

It would seem to me that if HMRC lose on the BN66 argument they still have this to fall back on.

I think we would all be perfectly happy to take our chances with that.

We are 100% convinced that HMRC could never have defeated the scheme in court prior to BN66 but of course we'll never get chance to prove that.

[Troll]

For those affected, have you got any figures for your personal liability that you can share?

[Churchill]

For those affected, have you got any figures for your personal liability that you can share?

To what end? So that you can have a laugh?

[fullyautomatix]

To what end? So that you can have a laugh?

:

[Troll]

To what end? So that you can have a laugh?

Not so, just trying to frame the conversations (which appear heated sometimes)with an understanding of the scale of the possible demands

[Churchill]

Not so, just trying to frame the conversations (which appear heated sometimes)with an understanding of the scale of the possible demands

If some people are in danger of losing their homes doesn't that frame the conversation adequately?