Reply to: BN66 - your opinions wanted

[Incognito]

The legislation is being tested under European Law (ECHR - Huitson and EU Treaty - Shiner) because it is the only means of challenging primary legislation of Parliament.

I can't speak for others but I certainly would not attempt to compare our situation with victims of torture etc.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to argue your case as such, them is the laws of the land. Previous examples though on the Bn66 thread using the old "First they came for the ...." analogy do not help your case (in my opinion).

I do agree with you though that your best avenue of attack would be to try and point out the hypocrisy in that only yourselves have been targeted (currently). We pride ourselves on having a developed legal system based on the rule of law, one of the key tenets of that maxim is that no person is above the law. I think you have a strong argument that clearly there is one rule for some and another rule for others with regards to settlements, pursuit, etc. That's all theory though, quite how you would get a court to back your argument based on scholastic discussion is another issue.

[Incognito]

Retrospection here *will* set a precedent because that is they way the British legal system works.

No it won't, this case is not the first example of retrospective tax laws.

Here is your precedent.

Maybe BolshieBastard can come along and give us his impartial opinions on the fairness of it all?

Careful, you'll get another nastygram (or 30).

[Churchill]

Churchill asking someone for qualifications? How I laughed.

I thought you'd miss the point.

[SueEllen]

The legislation is being tested under European Law (ECHR - Huitson and EU Treaty - Shiner) because it is the only means of challenging primary legislation of Parliament.

I can't speak for others but I certainly would not attempt to compare our situation with victims of torture etc.

On the other hand, EU Law has been used in arguably even less worthy causes than ours.

Jailed rapist forces PM to give prisoners vote within six months | The Sun |News
David Cameron is under pressure after judges rule that paedophiles and rapists can apply to have their names removed from the Sex Offenders Register | The Sun |News

Or cases like this one

And while I don't agree with the BN66 group they like everyone else have the right to fight their case using the laws in UK and Europe.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The legislation is being tested under European Law (ECHR - Huitson and EU Treaty - Shiner) because it is the only means of challenging primary legislation of Parliament.

I can't speak for others but I certainly would not attempt to compare our situation with victims of torture etc.

On the other hand, EU Law has been used in arguably even less worthy causes than ours.

Jailed rapist forces PM to give prisoners vote within six months | The Sun |News
David Cameron is under pressure after judges rule that paedophiles and rapists can apply to have their names removed from the Sex Offenders Register | The Sun |News

[minestrone]

Sorry, what are your qualifications again?

Churchill asking someone for qualifications? How I laughed.

[Incognito]

Sorry, what are your qualifications again?

I'm a self-employed gynaecologist. Never had formal training but happy to have a bash at almost anything.

[Churchill]

Well I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with Sas.

Other people have expressed more or less my entire argument. The case doesn't really affect me, however they should have done due diligence on the scheme before they entered. They can't say retrospection wasn't a possibility because the precedent was set with the Finance Act (No. 2) 1987. The intention of that legislation was that UK residents were not able to exploit double taxation treaties with regards to overseas 'partnerships'. Just because the scheme attempts to circumvent the law as written down with some constructive structuring of links in the chain, you can't deny that it is clearly subverting the intention of the law.

Another point, stop getting on at HMRC as if they have some vendetta against you, they are charged with collecting revenue for the UK as the laws of the land set out. If you have a beef then you have it with New Labour who enacted it, HMRC are purely the enforcement mechanism. Stop bleating on about your Human Rights as well, the ECHR was set up to enshrine the rights of humanity after the horrors of the first and second world wars. Preventing the persecution and genocide of a race of people is an example of protection of Human Rights, being used to argue a point that you should be paying less tax through an unregulated tax avoidance scheme is not. How on earth you can look at yourself in the mirror when you think your case compares to that of families being dragged from their homes, shipped off to concentration camps and then gassed as if they were no more than cattle really does gall me and is just a clear example of the 'me, me, me' culture that these schemes seem to thrive upon.



Incorrect, we do not have a codified system in the UK, we have a mixture of statutory and common law; the common law being developed through the Courts 'interpreting' the intention of Parliament.

Sorry, what are your qualifications again?

[NotAllThere]

Retrospective taxation is really bad. When it gets applied elsewhere, people won't think "Oh, those BN66 guys were the first victims", they'll think "Oh, those bastards brought this calamity on us".

[Incognito]

Well I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with Sas.

Other people have expressed more or less my entire argument. The case doesn't really affect me, however they should have done due diligence on the scheme before they entered. They can't say retrospection wasn't a possibility because the precedent was set with the Finance Act (No. 2) 1987. The intention of that legislation was that UK residents were not able to exploit double taxation treaties with regards to overseas 'partnerships'. Just because the scheme attempts to circumvent the law as written down with some constructive structuring of links in the chain, you can't deny that it is clearly subverting the intention of the law.

Another point, stop getting on at HMRC as if they have some vendetta against you, they are charged with collecting revenue for the UK as the laws of the land set out. If you have a beef then you have it with New Labour who enacted it, HMRC are purely the enforcement mechanism. Stop bleating on about your Human Rights as well, the ECHR was set up to enshrine the rights of humanity after the horrors of the first and second world wars. Preventing the persecution and genocide of a race of people is an example of protection of Human Rights, being used to argue a point that you should be paying less tax through an unregulated tax avoidance scheme is not. How on earth you can look at yourself in the mirror when you think your case compares to that of families being dragged from their homes, shipped off to concentration camps and then gassed as if they were no more than cattle really does gall me and is just a clear example of the 'me, me, me' culture that these schemes seem to thrive upon.

The intention of the law must be explicit in the letter of the law otherwise it is not the law.

Incorrect, we do not have a codified system in the UK, we have a mixture of statutory and common law; the common law being developed through the Courts 'interpreting' the intention of Parliament.

[SueEllen]

What about divorces though?

I assume you've insisted on formal prenup agreement before saying YES.

Unfortunately they tend to have a property in England and children

[AtW]

There's no tax on fantasy island.....

What about divorces though?

I assume you've insisted on formal prenup agreement before saying YES.

[DimPrawn]

I forgot to mention she should live offshore and pay no tax there...

There's no tax on fantasy island.....

[AtW]

Already have mate. Being on min wage for the last ten years is bloody tough I can tell you.

I forgot to mention she should live offshore and pay no tax there...

[DimPrawn]

Easy, just marry a woman that you can trust ownership of all your shares whilst you do all the work for pityful salary.

Already have mate. Being on min wage for the last ten years is bloody tough I can tell you.