Reply to: BN66; what the hell is going on over there?

[AtW]

In it you will actually see that the judge suggest that the outcome of an appeal to the commissioners - or indeed any further appeal to the courts as a result of this is far from certain.

That's exactly where the judge is wrong - taxes and death are two most certain things

[ASB]

Good pick - he did not say it's illegal, probably to avoid defense lawyers to pick at his main decision, but I guess that follows from the fact that tax will need to be paid back? I suppose maybe there is legal distinction, but surely not practical.

I could be wrong but, in terms of going forward (for an affected person) they could:-

a) Accept the scheme does not work (this is STILL in fact untested) and resubmit tax returns and pay up (or otherwise accept the principle of the debt). Assuming of course that they have not received a closure notice.

b) Accept as above, accepting the closure notice [i.e. withdrawing their appeal against it]

c) Request determination under the TMA

d) Wait for HMRC to take their case to the commissioners.

I know you can read, so read the judgement carefully. In it you will actually see that the judge suggest that the outcome of an appeal to the commissioners - or indeed any further appeal to the courts as a result of this is far from certain. He accepted that the arguments as to whether the scheme worked were in fact persuasive.

Whether the scheme worked or not was not in fact being tested in any way. The applicant has not been ordered to pay the disputed taxes - though of course it seems fair to assume HMRC will put pressure on him to roll over.

Of course it is entirely possible I haven't got a clue what I'm taking about - but this was a judicial review to ascertain whether or not BN66 was compatible with the ECHR.

[threaded]

How the hell can you compare this lot to the likes of Philip Green? He lives in Monaco for flips sake.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...agenews.uknews

He flies into work and then flies home. The BN66 lot certainty didn't make any pretence at living in the Isle of Man.

Yeah, lots of people say they live in Monaco. Reality is most rent quite small apartments, and even you lot would agree to the pokiness of them, we're talking abouts 40m2, and then a proper palace out back in France, oops a friend owns it and they're only visiting if anyone asks...

[AtW]

I've done that already.

That's good, I presume here that's genuine new job creation rather than having yourself on a payroll.

[AtW]

[picky]

And just where did he say that?

In fact he said nothing nothing of the sort. The judge was not in any way ruling on the legality or otherwise of the scheme.

Good pick - he did not say it's illegal, probably to avoid defense lawyers to pick at his main decision, but I guess that follows from the fact that tax will need to be paid back? I suppose maybe there is legal distinction, but surely not practical.

[Incognito]

The tax that his employees pay is nothing to do with the amount of tax that Philip Green should pay.

You're an arse!

How the hell can you compare this lot to the likes of Philip Green? He lives in Monaco for fecks sake.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...agenews.uknews

He flies into work and then flies home. The BN66 lot certainty didn't make any pretence at living in the Isle of Man.

[Churchill]

[picky]

And just where did he say that?

In fact he said nothing nothing of the sort. The judge was not in any way ruling on the legality or otherwise of the scheme.

He was ruling for "Fairness" - bet he wished he'd been on the scheme too...

[ASB]

Yes, I am sure you'd like that to happen - from HMRC's point of view they are getting tired with this tulip, so the best strategy for them is to introduce element of risk - you use some shady scheme that appears legal now (judge says it wasn't actually), you pay less tax but you carry the risk of having to repay all that money back if your "clever" scheme turns out to be illegal.

[picky]

And just where did he say that?

In fact he said nothing nothing of the sort. The judge was not in any way ruling on the legality or otherwise of the scheme.

[Mich the Tester]

Hiring at least one who is a bona fide full time employee who isn't related to you in any way (this means not your wife etc).

That would be a good start.

I've done that already.

[AtW]

Precisely how many people would you like me to employ for me to be exempted from income taxes?

Hiring at least one who is a bona fide full time employee who isn't related to you in any way (this means not your wife etc).

That would be a good start.

[TykeMerc]

Precisely how many people would you like me to employ for me to be exempted from income taxes?

There's no point arguing with AtW, he's a troll and as pointed out by Chrurchill is comparable to the end of the alimentary tract.

[Mich the Tester]

He runs businesses that are responsible for employing and paying proper tax many thousands of people. How many people were employed by businesses run by those people affected by the scheme apart from themselves and their spouses?

So Peter Green, despite his offshore status, is responsible for bringing in a lot of dosh to the Revenue, consequently he is not the enemy here. Now if he used the same offshore scheme to dodge tax paid to his staff, then HMRC would be on him very quickly and rightfully so.

Precisely how many people would you like me to employ for me to be exempted from income taxes?

[AtW]

Yeah, that's a good point. The ruling is perverse enough to require more legal types playing with it, which brings me to threaded's first law of legal systems: all legal systems are designed to enrich lawyers and everything else is a side effect. The outcome then was pretty obvious.

But they could have then ruled in favour of litigants rather than HMRC, it would be far more likely that HMRC would have appealed than litigants who'd have to pay lots of money back to the taxpayer.

[threaded]

That's as maybe, and likely to be debated by a higher court.

Yeah, that's a good point. The ruling is perverse enough to require more legal types playing with it, which brings me to threaded's first law of legal systems: all legal systems are designed to enrich lawyers and everything else is a side effect. The outcome then was pretty obvious.

[threaded]

Don't know, don't care. My point is about the retrospective nature of this. It isn't the first time. I seem to recall Labour suddenly slapped a windfall tax on the profits of oil companies. They're getting the UK a bad reputation.

They did a 'profiteering tax' on the steel companies after WW2. Who's going to invest in a business if you can't make plans because of retrospective taxation? Which is why they ended up having to be nationalised.