Joint action on APN

[flamel]

In case it's of interest: Mr Maughan QC's tweet has now been deleted. Not sure what this was all about.

It's not great for someone in his opposition to be commenting on a live case before the judges have had their say?

[LandRover]

In case it's of interest: Mr Maughan QC's tweet has now been deleted. Not sure what this was all about.

If elements of the Legal Profession get politicised then it wouldn't surprise me. At times it appears the whole "Establishment" appears corrupt and devoid of honesty. So ironic the country is celebrating the signing of the Magna Carta when we have entities of the state ignoring fairness with their retrospective laws being reaped on law abiding people.

[DotasScandal]

If elements of the Legal Profession get politicised then it wouldn't surprise me. At times it appears the whole "Establishment" appears corrupt and devoid of honesty. So ironic the country is celebrating the signing of the Magna Carta when we have entities of the state ignoring fairness with their retrospective laws being reaped on law abiding people.

Indeed. With each day, the concept of separation of powers seems more and more a thing of the past. That HMRC was granted the powers to be judge, jury and executioner with no opposition whatsoever tells us all we need to know, really.

[flamel]

I think someone should set up as "Disingenuous Stageboard" to take advantage of these new reliefs.

https://www.gov.uk/corporation-tax-c...ry-tax-reliefs

When the gov't runs out of cash in a few years time, they can retrospectively claim all the tax relief back.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Won't MP be applying for JR on behalf of it's members if the George defence fails anyway?
Are we realistically only talking about deferring it in the hope that something else saves the day, or is there a half a chance of actually winning a JR?
Historically the record isn't great :/

MP (Montpelier) have said they will apply for a JR.

Some schemes are using JR to delay enforcement while they try and get tax appeals to the FTT.

Personally I don't think a generic JR, on the principle of APN, has that much of a chance.

[ads1980]

MP (Montpelier) have said they will apply for a JR.

Some schemes are using JR to delay enforcement while they try and get tax appeals to the FTT.

Personally I don't think a generic JR, on the principle of APN, has that much of a chance.

My understanding is that AML are also planning on using a JR. I wouldn't have thought a generic JR would work like you say DR

[freeranger]

My understanding is that AML are also planning on using a JR. I wouldn't have thought a generic JR would work like you say DR

But this is a generic one, and if my scheme provider is going to launch a JR anyway, it would seem to not make much sense to join this one also...but for those who's scheme provider is not launching a JR or have disappeared completely, this may be their only hope (apart from NTRT of course) - is that a fair assessment?

[squirrel]

Personally I don't think a generic JR, on the principle of APN, has that much of a chance.

You're very probably right there but the general principle of the APN is exactly what we should be fighting.

I remember reading an official document somewhere from a link on one of these threads (buggered if I can find it now!) that clearly defined HMRCs rationale for APNs so that Parliament could have a considered and balanced view of the situation (lol) before agreeing to the APN legislation. Apart from point 1 on the list, "there's some tax in dispute" absolutely none of rest applied to me, cash flow, delaying tax blah blah blah (and the vast majority of people on here to I should imagine).

APNs are plain wrong and it shouldn't need a £1,000 an hour tax lawyer accountant pinsent masons QC to argue the case!

But unfortunately that's exactly what it will take because that's the state of our country right now :-(

[DotasScandal]

You're very probably right there but the general principle of the APN is exactly what we should be fighting.
I remember reading an official document somewhere from a link on one of these threads (buggered if I can find it now!) that clearly defined HMRCs rationale for APNs so that Parliament could have a considered and balanced view of the situation (lol) before agreeing to the APN legislation. Apart from point 1 on the list, "there's some tax in dispute" absolutely none of rest applied to me, cash flow, delaying tax blah blah blah (and the vast majority of people on here to I should imagine).
APNs are plain wrong and it shouldn't need a £1,000 an hour tax lawyer accountant pinsent masons QC to argue the case!
But unfortunately that's exactly what it will take because that's the state of our country right now :-(

All true, but the time for "fighting the general principle of the APN" was exactly one year ago.
The Government / HMRC placed a bet on the majority of us deluding ourselves that "it will be ok, it won't happen, someone else will take care of it", etc.
And they won.

[flamel]

Some people are still under the delusion that MPs know what they're talking about and therefore make sensible laws based on the facts.