BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal) BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal) - Page 407

View Poll Results: If HMRC demanded payment now, would you be at risk of losing your home?

Voters
272. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    163 59.93%
  • No

    88 32.35%
  • N/A

    21 7.72%
Page 407 of 407 FirstFirst ... 307357397405406407
Posts 4,061 to 4,069 of 4069
  1. #4061

    Godlike


    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,650

    Default

    Further to my previous post, this explains the route to the SC:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/...se-to-UKSC.pdf

  2. #4062

    Fingers like lightning

    Emigre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
    Someone asked me to clarify this because there seems to be some confusion.

    The Court of Appeal could give leave to appeal to the Supreme Court but this is highly unusual. As an aside, they could also refer PwC's case to the European Court of Justice.

    It is much more likely that either us, or HMRC, would have to apply to the Supreme Court.

    Given the contentious nature of the case, and precedents involved, it is inconceivable to me that the SC would not hear the case. The Seychelles guy Gaines-Cooper got his case heard by the SC and this was far less contentious and wide reaching.
    I think the Gaines-Cooper case is every bit as contentious. By all accounts he has lived in the Seychelles since 1976 yet HMRC feel they are entitled to tax him for all that time. Just think how many other people who left the country in the last 35 years are now waiting to be felt round the collar?

    Apparently, he has a house here and a golf membership but then so do many people who don't live here.

    Its another of those cases that destroys any certainty that may have once existed in the UK tax system. Not only that but you would have thought with the extent of tax legislation we have that HMRC could actually put together a reasonably watertight definitions of domicile and residency.

    Its another one that does nothing but open up a potential can of worms, retrospectively too.
    Join the No To Retro Tax Campaign Now
    "Tax evasion is easy: it involves breaking the law. By tax avoidance OECD means unacceptable avoidance ... This can be contrasted with acceptable tax planning. What is critical is transparency" - Donald Johnston, Secretary-General, OECD

  3. #4063

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
    Someone asked me to clarify this because there seems to be some confusion.

    The Court of Appeal could give leave to appeal to the Supreme Court but this is highly unusual. As an aside, they could also refer PwC's case to the European Court of Justice.

    It is much more likely that either us, or HMRC, would have to apply to the Supreme Court.

    Given the contentious nature of the case, and precedents involved, it is inconceivable to me that the SC would not hear the case. The Seychelles guy Gaines-Cooper got his case heard by the SC and this was far less contentious and wide reaching.
    How long is the SC process likely to take? COA came in at 18 month.

  4. #4064

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smalldog View Post
    A case in point on efficient tax planning, I assume HMRC will implement a retro tax to catch out Google??:

    Britain loses out in Google's tax avoidance | Business
    No chance, they'll simply let them off like they did with Vodaphone.... HMRC only pick on little people who don't have deep pockets to defend themselves with, like us and door to door Avon sales people who they retrospectively decided were Avon employees..... After all it's only fair that HMRC should be able to decide which fights to pick rather than applying the same rules across the board without exception....

  5. #4065

    Godlike


    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Emigre View Post
    I think the Gaines-Cooper case is every bit as contentious.
    I'll have to beg to differ.

    The Gaines-Cooper case hinges on HMRC guidance, not statute.

    IMHO, retrospectively changing the law is far more contentious.

  6. #4066

    Godlike


    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by not-a-penny View Post
    How long is the SC process likely to take? COA came in at 18 month.
    I reckon a year to 18 months.

  7. #4067

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
    I reckon a year to 18 months.
    Thanks DR. I've just browsed through the SC web site and there are ongoing cases dating from Q1 2009.

  8. #4068

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
    I can understand her concern but, whatever happens on Monday, we are a long way off HMRC being able to enforce collection.

    In any case, why would HMRC block the sale if that meant them getting paid?
    ... and while we are on the subject, would I be right to assume that even in the worst case that HMRC eventually win and I'm forced to sell the house, they can only get their gruby hands on my half of the equity? Or is it not as simple as that?

  9. #4069

    Old Greg is my bitch

    administrator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    With the judgement being handed down on Monday it is best to start a new thread to lighten the load on the server. This thread is now closed and the discussion can be continued here:
    http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...al-beyond.html

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •