Reply to: UK HMRC Corporation Tax Time Bomb

[OwlHoot]

A tax is not a punishment, it's not a prison sentence or a fine, it is a rule which requires you to pay tax. It is not the same thing as legislating something is illegal and applying it retrospectively,

Paying tax, like obeying the law is an obligation. That's what it's about.

If the government decides to introduce an additional tax on companies based on what they earned in 1995, they may do so. They're not saying the company broke the law they're simply raising revenue. ...

I don't dispute that, but you're trying to make a false dichotomy based on the how the current law happens to be.

The unconstitutional aspect (in abstract terms rather than a specific law) is changing obligations retrospectively, which undermines rational choice and planning and trust in the Government.

[BlasterBates]

Hehe. I thought someone would spot that! But I did add "plain common sense" or, to use a high falutin phrase, "natural justice".

There would be a big outcry, and rightly so, if any Parliament tried to apply adverse changes in criminal law retrospectively. Even with kiddy fiddlers and sex pests the courts are careful to use sentencing guidelines that applied at the time of the offence(s).

Even doing so for civil law it is highly objectionable, because in a civilized and complex society people and companies need to know where they stand.

A tax is not a punishment, it's not a prison sentence or a fine, it is a rule which requires you to pay tax.It is not the same thing as legislating something is illegal and applying it retrospectively, which is unconstitutional. If the government decides to introduce an additional tax on companies based on what they earned in 1995, they may do so. They're not saying the company broke the law they're simply raising revenue. Of course they wouldn't do this because they would discourage investment, but if a company finds a loophole extending back to 1990 the government could respond with a new tax also extending back to 1990. This wouldn't discourage investment because companies would understand that they were trying it on.

[OwlHoot]

Is that the one the Brexiters want to get rid of...

Hehe. I thought someone would spot that! But I did add "plain common sense" or, to use a high falutin phrase, "natural justice".

There would be a big outcry, and rightly so, if any Parliament tried to apply adverse changes in criminal law retrospectively. Even with kiddy fiddlers and sex pests the courts are careful to use sentencing guidelines that applied at the time of the offence(s).

Even doing so for civil law it is highly objectionable, because in a civilized and complex society people and companies need to know where they stand.

[darmstadt]

Section 7 of the Human Rights Act (1998), and plain common sense, prohibits UK criminal law being applied retrospectively except where these were established international laws at the time of the offence (e.g. "war crimes").

But I doubt if that applies in civil cases, such as tax disputes, especially as HMR&C have themselves established more than one precedent of retrospective taxation in their favour, the mupps!

Is that the one the Brexiters want to get rid of...

[northernladyuk]

No it's not true. But then lefties and other assorted idiots have never had truth very high up on their list of priorities.

Jesus wept.

[GJABS]

Do you believe that statement is true? If so, why bother with the court case. Wouldn't it be sensible for the UK to just borrow the money and donate it to the big corporations in the form of a CT rebate?

No it's not true. But then lefties and other assorted idiots have never had truth very high up on their list of priorities.

[northernladyuk]

Section 7 of the Human Rights Act (1998), and plain common sense, prohibits UK criminal law being applied retrospectively except where these were established international laws at the time of the offence (e.g. "war crimes").

But I doubt if that applies in civil cases, such as tax disputes, especially as HMR&C have themselves established more than one precedent of retrospective taxation in their favour, the mupps!

Any new law can assert its primacy over a previous law, so the Human Rights Act cannot bind future parliaments.

Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.

htts://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

But yes, we are talking about civil law.

[AtW]

UK parliament has primacy over EU rules and always has done. Assertion of that primacy may be in conflict with the terms of membership of the EU, but that does not negate the primacy. And what are they gonna do anyway?

If UK Parliament starts confiscating property of big multinational businesses then they would not just roll over and take one for the team...

[OwlHoot]

Because the UK has no written constitution, retrospective laws cannot effectively be made illegal in the UK.

Section 7 of the Human Rights Act (1998), and plain common sense, prohibits UK criminal law being applied retrospectively except where these were established international laws at the time of the offence (e.g. "war crimes").

But I doubt if that applies in civil cases, such as tax disputes, especially as HMR&C have themselves established more than one precedent of retrospective taxation in their favour, the mupps!

[northernladyuk]

HMRC tells parliament what to do. It would be good to change the law retrospectively - the outcry would then make retrospective laws illegal(they are only legal in 5 countries anyway).

UK will settle its bar bill. There will be a huge disagreement over what was ordered.

HMRC has no authority over parliament but it can advise parliament.

Because the UK has no written constitution, retrospective laws cannot effectively be made illegal in the UK.

[BrilloPad]

HMRC doesn't have legislative powers. UK parliament, however, can and should change the law retrospectively. Th UK needs that cash to pay its bar bill.

HMRC tells parliament what to do. It would be good to change the law retrospectively - the outcry would then make retrospective laws illegal(they are only legal in 5 countries anyway).

UK will settle its bar bill. There will be a huge disagreement over what was ordered.

[northernladyuk]

Don't panic! HMRC can retrospectively change the law and nothing will have to be repaid.

HMRC doesn't have legislative powers. UK parliament, however, can and should change the law retrospectively. Th UK needs that cash to pay its bar bill.

[InsertWittyNameHere555]

I am sure HMRC will come out with something along the lines of "you can't retrospectively" claim tax

[BrilloPad]

No, that's just you.

Don't panic! HMRC can retrospectively change the law and nothing will have to be repaid.

[northernladyuk]

I thought big business paid no tax?

No, that's just you.