Learn fron NTRT's experience (or not)

[stonehenge]

They ran a campaign to reverse the retrospective legislation BN66.

They hired a leading firm of lobbyists, Whitehouse Consulting.

Amongst other things, they:

• lobbied hundreds of MPs
• organized a petition
• got a group of cross party MPs to write to Minister Gauke
• got lots of MPs to sign an EDM
• got questions asked in Parliament
• held a seminar for a large group of MPs in the HoC
• got the Human Rights committee to scrutinize the legislation
• got the Treasury committee to examine it
• got a Conservative MP to table an amendment to a Finance Bill, which was debated in Parliament

And guess what, it achieved feck all.

They've been more successful since they switched to a purely legal battle with HMRC. They hired a top flight firm of tax advisors and barristers, and they've already secured one victory in getting APNs withdrawn, and they are making progress in other areas.

There's only a few hundred of them, so they've each had to stump up a couple of grand or so. There's over 50,000 of you. Imagine what you could do if just 5% of you chipped in £1000 to a legal fund.

But never mind any of this. This time is different, hey.

[Calmbeforethestorm]

They ran a campaign to reverse the retrospective legislation BN66.

They hired a leading firm of lobbyists, Whitehouse Consulting.

Amongst other things, they:

• lobbied hundreds of MPs
• organized a petition
• got a group of cross party MPs to write to Minister Gauke
• got lots of MPs to sign an EDM
• got questions asked in Parliament
• held a seminar for a large group of MPs in the HoC
• got the Human Rights committee to scrutinize the legislation
• got the Treasury committee to examine it
• got a Conservative MP to table an amendment to a Finance Bill, which was debated in Parliament

And guess what, it achieved feck all.

They've been more successful since they switched to a purely legal battle with HMRC. They hired a top flight firm of tax advisors and barristers, and they've already secured one victory in getting APNs withdrawn, and they are making progress in other areas.

There's only a few hundred of them, so they've each had to stump up a couple of grand or so. There's over 50,000 of you. Imagine what you could do if just 5% of you chipped in £1000 to a legal fund.

But never mind any of this. This time is different, hey.

Interesting, but, dont forget simply getting an APN withdrawn doesn't really mean much.....simply that HMRC dont get to play with your money whilst its fought out in court.....they still going to take the matter to court and may still win. As you have no longer paid on account the interest carries on racking up.

[stonehenge]

The fat lady hasn't sung yet.

But I think you miss the point. All the petitions, EDMs, lobbying is just pissing in the wind.

Oh, and by the way, one user of the BN66 scheme did actually commit suicide over it. This was presented to the MPs, and they were shocked and horrified. But did it make any difference? Did it feck.

[Calmbeforethestorm]

The fat lady hasn't sung yet.

But I think you miss the point. All the petitions, EDMs, lobbying is just pissing in the wind.

Oh, and by the way, one user of the BN66 scheme did actually commit suicide over it. This was presented to the MPs, and they were shocked and horrified. But did it make any difference? Did it feck.

No not really, I agree sadly..... HMR"C are dead set on this one and only a court could overturn it ....which I fear is unlikely.Huitson and Shiner cases took the best part of a decade to decide and HMRC won in the end.


It is a real sickener that they can charge IHT on wages though.

[stonehenge]

No not really, I agree sadly..... HMR"C are dead set on this one and only a court could overturn it ....which I fear is unlikely.Huitson and Shiner cases took the best part of a decade to decide and HMRC won in the end.

Challenging primary legislation is not easy, and arguing human rights, or eu bollox, is unlikely to get you anywhere.

The loan charge seems pretty watertight but there may be very clever lawyers who can find a way.

[webberg]

The loan charge is far from watertight and I'm sure will be challenge by a lot of "clever lawyers" and others. The key issue is that HMRC persist in denying the full effect of the Supreme Court.

Stonehenge is right though in that a lot of political noise and finger pointing and tales of damage will make little difference to those who "work for you" in the House of Commons.

We continue to run that campaign but we also have a good legal case and will be using it. I'd hope to avoid that route, but nobody should be afraid of it.

[Calmbeforethestorm]

The loan charge is far from watertight and I'm sure will be challenge by a lot of "clever lawyers" and others. The key issue is that HMRC persist in denying the full effect of the Supreme Court.

Stonehenge is right though in that a lot of political noise and finger pointing and tales of damage will make little difference to those who "work for you" in the House of Commons.

We continue to run that campaign but we also have a good legal case and will be using it. I'd hope to avoid that route, but nobody should be afraid of it.

Legal case all well and good , if you feel that the loan charge wont bite your ass before its decided. HMRC been awfully clever in, virtually, ensuring it cant get to court before April 2019.

Unless I missed something.

[webberg]

Legal case all well and good , if you feel that the loan charge wont bite your ass before its decided. HMRC been awfully clever in, virtually, ensuring it cant get to court before April 2019.

Unless I missed something.

Not really.

Just that there are likely to be two legal cases.

One to say that the loan charge does not apply.

One to say that the basis of liability on general principles does not apply.

[Calmbeforethestorm]

Not really.

Just that there are likely to be two legal cases.

One to say that the loan charge does not apply.

One to say that the basis of liability on general principles does not apply.

I fail to see how anyone will argue the LC doesn't apply when the legislation says it does.( unless it doesn't say that?)....the courts seem to favour the legislation where tax avoidance is concerned.

Furthermore, do "general principles" count for anything when HMRC and their lackeys in parliament write the rule book?

[starstruck]

I fail to see how anyone will argue the LC doesn't apply when the legislation says it does.( unless it doesn't say that?)....the courts seem to favour the legislation where tax avoidance is concerned.

Furthermore, do "general principles" count for anything when HMRC and their lackeys in parliament write the rule book?

Also, somewhere it states the the loan charge still applies even if the scheme is later proven to be successful in court.