Happy New Year George Osborne!

Reply to the comment left by "Chris Byways" at "01/01/2016 - 16:56":

I DID NOT UNDERTAND A THING OF IT, CERTAINLY NOT THIS LAST SENTENCE :
by favouring their own national undertakings and industries over others could be used to challenge (effective) tax hikes, but that is the strange direction that the law has been taken.
State aid arises
Does anyone else understands or can explain ?

Reply to the comment left by "Rachel Hobdell" at "01/01/2016 - 17:33":

Good international barristers can earn £1m a year, so don't worry about trying to understand. They are the type of lawyers the Gov use - at our expense.

It is a question of precedents, and our law not being at variance to similar judgement in EU, even though nothing to do with housing or possibly tax. Above my pay grade too.

Reply to the comment left by "Rachel Hobdell" at "01/01/2016 - 17:33":

Rachel,

My understanding of the document is this:

State aid can occur whenever government resources are used to provide assistance that gives organisations an advantage over others. State Aid Law is intended to ensure this only happens in cases where is can be justified in order to correct a market failure.

In a nutshell what he is saying is that:

1) Tax policy is not outside State Aid Law.

2) That because the activities of corporate and private landlords are legally and factually largely the same ("They are subject to the same regulatory regimes and provide the same services") the government needs to take a lot of care when providing an advantage to one group over the other.

3) To justify doing so they would need to show that the distortions created by the changes are justifiable because they are likely to be an effective way to achieve the objective of the divisive policy.

He then contends that the that the government don't appear to have clearly thought out the reasons for justification, as the reasons given don't hold up to initial scrutiny. e.g. the argument that finance and interest costs are a different sort of expense and should be treated differently, is undermined by apply this to private landlords whilst not applying this to corporate landlords (who run pretty much identical businesses).

It's very positive. That said, he mentions that the case he refers to took 13 years to resolve...

Judicial review cases are often argued around the consultation that took place prior to the proposal being passed, and not against the legislation itself. This is because, as has been stated, the standard of proof is high and judges do not like to interfere directly with the rulings of local or national government. The consultation is therefore often the Achilles' heel.

If the "consultation" here is based around the geography graduate's report that Mark Alexander revealed recently, or anything of a similar calibre, I would say the claimants have a very strong case. I doubt very much that a celebrated chamber of QCs would be offering representation if it wasn't.

Reply to the comment left by "Cosmo Anayiotos" at "01/01/2016 - 12:21":

The £45,000 is the initial response only. I'll admit that I haven't paid in yet - but I will be doing this week! Hopefully this fund (and the numbers) will grow rapidly.

It's encouraging to see a fair amount of activity around this stupid and I'll thought through attack on the BTL / PRS.
The arguments against the tax changes and the Judicial Review are being exceptionally well organised and presented.
I do worry damage is happening daily through the lack of understanding in government and the contradictory policies. I read a debate on the new housing bill or whatever it's called and quite frankly some of the comments being made where beyond a joke. We need professional people making legislation not politicians. Let's bring in a Common Sense section of government and give it authority over all they do. Plus a commercial arm to relate comments to the real world. No money can be wasted taking proposals forward if they cannot propose sensible changes.
If only!!