APN JR defeated

[DotasScandal]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/h...ents-challenge

Rowe & Ors v Revenue & Customs [2015] EWHC 2293 (Admin) (31 July 2015)

[eek]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/h...ents-challenge

Rowe & Ors v Revenue & Customs [2015] EWHC 2293 (Admin) (31 July 2015)

Surprised how quickly the judgement was made. I can't say that I'm surprised at the result...

[Underbase]

Surprised how quickly the judgement was made. I can't say that I'm surprised at the result...

That was very quick indeed. Can they appeal a JR?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

That was very quick indeed. Can they appeal a JR?

Yes. This hearing was in the High Court. They can appeal to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court.

[Underbase]

Yes. This hearing was in the High Court. They can appeal to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court.

And I imagine with the numbers involved in those schemes they are planning on going the whole way. For all those out there that can't afford to pay and are stuck in a JR behind these guys I hope the wheels of justice turn slower. Seems very strange that it was all so quick, surely these things normally take longer? Is there any pressure being applied?

[DotasScandal]

Seems very strange that it was all so quick, surely these things normally take longer? Is there any pressure being applied??

The answer is annoyingly obvious...

[dangerouswhensober]

A quote from the document issued by HMRC (the first hotlink in the first post in this thread):

“We expect to complete the issue of around 64,000 notices tax (sic) by the end of 2016 bringing forward £5.5bn in payments for the Exchequer by March 2020"

So just nine months later than the previous target for issuing these then ...

[Underbase]

The answer is annoyingly obvious...

One hopeful thing is, the higher it climbs the less likely Judges are to take the Governments side and instead look at the actual law. Its hard to hang a promotion over a supreme court judges head, there is no supreme supreme court.

[webberg]

I need to read the decision carefully but I think on first reading this is a heavy defeat.

It may be that the higher Courts have to power to decide whether to accept an appeal or not (this happens in tax appeals but this is a different Court). A heavy defeat would perhaps persuade them that there is no prospect of victory and as such an appeal is a waste of court time? Like I said, I don't know what the process is here, so we wait and see.

Many JR's are backed up behind this one. They may have to decide whether to go for hearing or not now. Some have collected fees already but again whether for making the application or for a full hearing, I don't know - probably varies.

this is a time for cool heads and for once a weekend works in our favour.

Read the judgement, have a think and I'm sure that this thread will fill up over the weekend with ideas, good and bad.

[Underbase]

One hopeful thing is, the higher it climbs the less likely Judges are to take the Governments side and instead look at the actual law. Its hard to hang a promotion over a supreme court judges head, there is no supreme supreme court.

Talk about reaching, it seems that people not prepaying their tax is as dangerous as Iran building nuclear weapons. Seems HMRC's propaganda war worked on one judge.


In Bank Mellat a statutory direction was made prohibiting all persons operating in the financial sector in the UK from entering into any transaction with Bank Mellat, a major Iranian commercial bank, on the grounds that HM Treasury believed that the development or production of nuclear weapons in Iran posed a significant risk to the UK's national interests. The direction was described by Lord Sumption in terms that make clear why prior opportunity to make representations was necessary. He said at [37]: "A direction to financial institutions to cease business with a designated person is apt to achieve serious and immediate damage while it remains in effect, extending well beyond transactions related to nuclear proliferation. Even if it is set aside, the impact on the designated person's goodwill may be substantial and in some cases irreversible." Lord Sumption also noted in the same passage that "the recognition of a duty of prior consultation would not frustrate the purpose of the statutory scheme, nor would it cut across its practical operation."

The decision is pretty cutting all in all. What would be interesting is if we get a clear answer on the Rangers case and then a EBT Judicial review. The reason for that is, there is a section where the Judge talks about discretion and how it was exercised correctly. This was supposedly done by bringing in HRMC's internal technical experts and saying "does this scheme work? Nope.. good issue the APN's for every user". It would be a lot easier to argue, if Rangers win to say "really? your technical expert definitly said it doesn't work, on what grounds?" This might have the effect of HMRC explaining why they didn't think it worked, and/or forcing them to "exercise discretion" on the EBT cases. Just my 2c