The Court of Appeal has heard three days of evidence in the case involving IT Contractor Robert Huitson and his belief that the retrospective closing of BN66 and subsequent tax demands were in breach of his human rights.
BN66, or Finance Act 2008 s58, was a legal loophole used by thousands of contractors as a means of minimising their tax liabilities. Many of those contractors have since faced retrospective tax bills dating back to 2001. Huitson’s lawyer, David Elvin QC has been critical of this backdated liability, pointing to the financial ruin, stress and family problems which have resulted for many of those involved.
With all evidence laid before Lord Justice Morgan, Lord Justice Mummery and Sir Paul Kennedy it is now in their hands to determine whether or not the retrospective element is in contravention to Article 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Of course, this is not the first time that this has been challenged. A High Court Judicial Review at the start of the year found that there was no breach of human rights.
Speaking to Contractor UK, an IT contractor who used a BN66 scheme and subsequently received backdated tax demands, stated: “During the previous hearing in the High Court, the Judge gave very little away. I suspect that will also be the case this time and the Judges will reserve any comment for the actual judgement [which is due at a later date].”