BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[ASB]

I'm at a loss to understand the constant slagging off that goes on on this thread. The title of the thread is "BN66 - Time to fight back!!!" It's a call to arms. A good debate will only happen where people have different views and opinions but why do those with such glass half empty attitudes waste their own and others time with their regular posts here? If they don't have a personal interest, some of their comments can only constitute gloating, not a pleasant character trait, and certainly not necessary on a quality forum.

Surely the title of this thread suggests participation from those with genuine interest and with a positive approach to challenging legislation that blatantly contravenes human rights (there are already precedents supporting this statement). The problem here is that the successful application of retrospective legislation can only apply in favour of the legislators, there is no opportunity for scheme participants to retrospectively remanage their affairs in the next best available way. In other words, not only does the Government seek to close the door retrospectively, they also get to choose how your deemed income gets taxed. There is no way for example that you could retrospectively be deemed to have operated through a limited company. I went onto the Montp scheme as a result of the uncertainty surrounding IR35 and S660.

I for one believe that Montp have a strong case for a number of reasons, many of which have been discussed elsewhere on this thread. I do not believe that I am looking at the world through rose-tinted glasses but in a rational way. It is essential that Montp be allowed to build their case. There is no upside in them sharing every angle they may have. The sense that I have had from them is that information is shared as and when there is something that can or needs to be said.

Emigre

Personally I have no interest other than curiosity. I do think that scheme users were possibly somewhat optimistic. It's certainly not something I would have ever gone for and it is an extreme avoidance measure in my view. This doesn't mean I think anybody chancing their arm - so to speak - was in any way wrong. Perfectly entitled to do so, provided they can suffer the consequence if it all goes pear shaped - which may or may not now be happening.

I do think the government is fundamentally wrong in its actions. Backdating to 2004 (?) - the point at which the announcement was made that all failed avoidance schemes would be backdated to - would arguably be reasonable. Trying clarification in terms of "well what we actually meant was" is not right. It also subverts parliament (which sadly is no surprise in recent years).

It has long been held that the "will of parliament" is only relevant when legislation is unclear. The legislation in question does seem fairly clear. What they are now saying is "what we meant was", "we didn't expect any body to" etc.

If that was the intent then that is what they should have legislated for. But they didn't.

[RockTheBoat]

Judicial Review

Just a quick question to get things back on track.

Does anyone here have an idea how long the inevitable Judicial Review would take.

Im guessing a few days for each side to deliver their arguments, and then maybe a week or 2 for the said judge(s) to return a verdict ???

then no doubt Hector will squeal and appeal... (Mr B ). Or can they ?

[BrilloPad]

Just a quick question to get things back on track.

Does anyone here have an idea how long the inevitable Judicial Review would take.

Im guessing a few days for each side to deliver their arguments, and then maybe a week or 2 for the said judge(s) to return a verdict ???

then no doubt Hector will squeal and appeal... (Mr B ). Or can they ?

<personal comment>
I would guess it would take more than a few days - maybe a week? I have seen verdicts take months to deliver.

Whichever side wins it will probably be appealed all the way to Europe where we will win - I now reckon the back end of 2010.

It would be hard to get an answer out of montp on that - alot of guesswork there.

BP
</personal comment>

[malvolio]

To all the newcomers here - Mal is the uber-troll. LOoks like he is a bit grumpy ....

I am many things, but I am not a troll; I just take a different viewpoint to you guys. Not my problem if you don't like it.

And I'm always grumpy

[mossman]

Ctd

Forgive my ignorance, but what is a CTD (been mentioned a few times in this thread)

[BrilloPad]

I am many things, but I am not a troll; I just take a different viewpoint to you guys. Not my problem if you don't like it.

And I'm always grumpy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

"someone who posts controversial"

bearing in mind the title of this thread do you not think your posts are contraversial?

I am sorry you are always grumpy - but is there any need to take it out on us? Can't your find some newcomers elsewhere? Beasting newcomers seems to be your favourite pastime...

[ASB]

Whichever side wins it will probably be appealed all the way to Europe where we will win - I now reckon the back end of 2010.

I think that time frame is optimistic. My understanding is that the route it:-

Normal Court -> Court of Appeal -> House of Lords -> ECHR.

Each of these will involve a fairly length wait, the end of 2010 is only 18 months away. The M + S VAT case took 12 years in all

[malvolio]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

"someone who posts controversial"

...

Selective quotation is such a crude weapon...

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion

My aim is (and always has been) to make you think, not to disrupt the argument. Highlighting the counter-arguments and pointing out where you are in danger of making significant mistakes is not exactly off-topic, nor irrelevant.

[RockTheBoat]

My aim is (and always has been) to make you think, not to disrupt the argument. Highlighting the counter-arguments and pointing out where you are in danger of making significant mistakes is not exactly off-topic, nor irrelevant.

OK thanks mal, I think you achieved all that by about page 10 of this thread... (and nothing new since)

So unless you ACTUALLY have anything NEW to add, please enjoy your holiday and Im sure one of us on the ship HMS MontP will let you know how the Battle Of Brannigan turns out

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Selective quotation is such a crude weapon...

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion

My aim is (and always has been) to make you think, not to disrupt the argument. Highlighting the counter-arguments and pointing out where you are in danger of making significant mistakes is not exactly off-topic, nor irrelevant.

86