BN66/S58 update

[proggy]

The courts said it was legal for Govt to use this particular element of retrospection.

So the law has spoken - what the Govt did was legal.

Some could argue that it was immoral for Govt to do it, but it's legal.

Why should the Govt cave in after it won the legal challenge?

Changing the law to make this loophole illegal is fine by me, but to try apply it to the past is insane. What if they turn around next year and say that paying dividends is now illegal and we are applying it back to 1970?

[AtW]

Changing the law to make this loophole illegal is fine by me, but to try apply it to the past is insane.

Read the judgement - it's pretty well written and balanced, it does not give Govt right to do anything retro, but it shows that SOME proportional retro laws like this are legal.

It was completely reasonable to expect that BN66 people would be caught out and pay already established tax rates.

[Old Greg]

Changing the law to make this loophole illegal is fine by me, but to try apply it to the past is insane. What if they turn around next year and say that paying dividends is now illegal and we are applying it back to 1970?

That would be an example of bad retrospective legislation.

What if they turned around and said that from now on it is illegal to drive a car on the weekend. That is an example of bad prospective legislation. But we don't allow the possibility of bad prospective legislation make an argument against good prospective legislation. It is the same for retrospective legislation.

You need to make an argument against this legislation on its own merits, not because it might mean another law might be passed in the future.

[proggy]

That would be an example of bad retrospective legislation.

What if they turned around and said that from now on it is illegal to drive a car on the weekend. That is an example of bad prospective legislation. But we don't allow the possibility of bad prospective legislation make an argument against good prospective legislation. It is the same for retrospective legislation.

You need to make an argument against this legislation on its own merits, not because it might mean another law might be passed in the future.

I am saying this is an example of bad retrospective legislation as well then. The reason is it wasn't obvious that this could be made illegal in the future.

[AtW]

You need to make an argument against this legislation on its own merits, not because it might mean another law might be passed in the future.

Tax cheaters' whole strategy relies on the fact that loopholes will be closed only prospectively.

It should be very cost efficient for the taxpayers to shaft such cheats retrospectively.

[Old Greg]

I am saying this is an example of bad retrospective legislation as well then. The reason is it wasn't obvious that this could be made illegal in the future.

That's an entirely different position and makes much more sense IMO.

I disagree.

I remember a few years back colleagues whispering to me about it and telling me not to tell anyone that they were in the scheme. I asked them why they were whispering and not sharing it more widely but they just looked shame faced. As d000gh would say: As ye have sown, so shall ye reap.

It was of course entirely obvious that retrospective legislation could be introduced for two reasons:

- Parliament is supreme.
- The case below showed how such an outcome was possible in the similar jurisdiction of Australia.

Perhaps the QC forgot to include this in his opinion.

Bottom of the harbour tax avoidance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[proggy]

That's an entirely different position and makes much more sense IMO.

I disagree.

I remember a few years back colleagues whispering to me about it and telling me not to tell anyone that they were in the scheme. I asked them why they were whispering and not sharing it more widely but they just looked shame faced. As d000gh would say: As ye have sown, so shall ye reap.

It was of course entirely obvious that retrospective legislation could be introduced for two reasons:

- Parliament is supreme.
- The case below showed how such an outcome was possible in the similar jurisdiction of Australia.

Perhaps the QC forgot to include this in his opinion.

Bottom of the harbour tax avoidance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So before arranging your tac affairs you should trawl the worlds legal systems and all cases to see if there might be a chance in the future the law could be changed. Utter bulltulip all of you are suffering from hindsight bias.

[AtW]

So before arranging your tac affairs you should trawl the worlds legal systems and all cases to see if there might be a chance in the future the law could be changed. Utter bulltulip all of you are suffering from hindsight bias.

Only if your "arrangement" cuts down income tax from 40% to 3.5%.

HTH

[shaunbhoy]

Why are you mad?

Because either he has not been given a shotgun licence, or his sofa has a tear in it?

[Old Greg]

So before arranging your tac affairs you should trawl the worlds legal systems and all cases to see if there might be a chance in the future the law could be changed. Utter bulltulip all of you are suffering from hindsight bias.

Not at all. The QC opinion should have included a note:

However, we must acknowledge the risk of retrospective legislation. This has occurred as a measure against tax avoidance in Australia, a jurisdiction withartina similarities to the UK.

No need to trawl at all. How is that for you?