BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued

[MuddyFunster]

Yup exactly... save that surprise for the court hearing... amazed how thorough it was thou... think there will be a lot of surprised revenue officials come court time!!

I'd imagine that there'd be some sort of information exchange before the JR so both sides know each other's arguments. Or I maybe totally wrong...

[smalldog]

to be honest I still find it quiet laughable that HMRC think we are all so loaded we can just cough up what is for some, a six figure sum!!! They think they had issues getting the money out of poor old Kerry Katonna, just wait til they try to get the money out of some 3000 contractors!! Boy they are going to have a shock when they do ability to pay assessments, pretty much all of us will end up in court facing bankruptcy if Montp dont win..

so very back of a fag packet calculation here....

3000 contractors X 12 hours legal fees @ £500 per hour (not including barristers fees of course which as we all know can be £1000 per hour!)....

3000 X £6000 per case = £18m...add a bit of contingency for internal admin etc of 10%....wooohoooo £20m big ones!!! hmmm wonder how much they will extract...if they win!

[Emigre]

to be honest I still find it quiet laughable that HMRC think we are all so loaded we can just cough up what is for some, a six figure sum!!! They think they had issues getting the money out of poor old Kerry Katonna, just wait til they try to get the money out of some 3000 contractors!! Boy they are going to have a shock when they do ability to pay assessments, pretty much all of us will end up in court facing bankruptcy if Montp dont win..

so very back of a fag packet calculation here....

3000 contractors X 12 hours legal fees @ £500 per hour (not including barristers fees of course which as we all know can be £1000 per hour!)....

3000 X £6000 per case = £18m...add a bit of contingency for internal admin etc of 10%....wooohoooo £20m big ones!!! hmmm wonder how much they will extract...if they win!

Look at how much they already spent on IR35...

Again, very fag packet, but 2000 cases, won less than 10?

Costs per case for each side, say £50k - does that look like £200million. Recoveries? Basis of Dragonfly approx £1million. Yet when asked they don't keep a record of costs!!! Its hard to think this isn't a little shy of the truth since I'm sure they charged their costs to the few poor guys that lost. Honesty, integrity and openness are clearly not words easily associated with HMRC.

[ASB]

Yup exactly... save that surprise for the court hearing... amazed how thorough it was thou... think there will be a lot of surprised revenue officials come court time!!

I doubt there will be any surprised revenue officials come court time. This is due to the disclosure rules. As a general principle you cannot introduce something which hasn't been disclosed (though if it is "new" and post disclosure then you can but the "other team" will get a chance for rebuttal with adjournment if needed).

Certainly they may be some surprise to the revenue at the point of disclosure but it wont take the form in court:-

"Well Mr HMRC using xxxxxxxxxx this is clearly a silver bullet and fatal to you case"

HMRC: "Oh bugger, fair enough you win".

[ASB]

Look at how much they already spent on IR35...

Again, very fag packet, but 2000 cases, won less than 10?

Costs per case for each side, say £50k - does that look like £200million. Recoveries? Basis of Dragonfly approx £1million. Yet when asked they don't keep a record of costs!!! Its hard to think this isn't a little shy of the truth since I'm sure they charged their costs to the few poor guys that lost. Honesty, integrity and openness are clearly not words easily associated with HMRC.

What you don't see (and it's very difficult to estimate) are the non contested reoveries. i.e. all those who don't join "schemes" or who simply agree they are inside IR35.

This is why it was (arguably!) perfectly reasonable for HMRC to spend 500k odd on 7k of tax in Arctic. Had they won there was a shedload more at stake. The same is true with Dragonfly and will no doubt be true with MP (if and when it happens).

You really can't run the SCO on the basis at looking at overall costs versus specific cases fought, that's not really what it's about. [Of course I'm not saying the SCO is cost effective overall in its litiigation - but it probably is]

[ContractIn]

Yup exactly... save that surprise for the court hearing... amazed how thorough it was thou... think there will be a lot of surprised revenue officials come court time!!

Yes but do we know if MontP have even submitted the request for JR?

[TheGadgetMan]

Yup exactly... save that surprise for the court hearing... amazed how thorough it was thou... think there will be a lot of surprised revenue officials come court time!!

Absolutely!...

can I make a suggestion here...happy to be shot down in flames...my feeling here is that we have discussed BN66, MP and MrYouKnowWho () to death...the original thread that was closed yesterday was 180+ pages long!...there is very little new to add at this moment in time...

my feeling is that there is really very little more discussion that is constructive - we all need to now sit tight and wait for MPs response to kick in...I think there is a real danger of someone dropping a B*ll*ck which could jeopardise things...any newbies who want to catch up with where we are should be pointed to the original thread...

...and I think this is a really important point...MrYouKnowWho () is still reading this...even if he doesn't learn anything more factual, he is still picking up on our mood and this may influence his method of attack in the future...he's already shown himself to be heavy-handed (jeopardy assessments! FFS!!!)...so who knows whats around the corner...if HMRC see any signs of weakness, they will go for the kill...

I say that we are close to things starting to happen re. MP...now's the time to stay quiet...

like I said...happy to be shot down in flames...

[BrilloPad]

Absolutely!...

can I make a suggestion here...happy to be shot down in flames...my feeling here is that we have discussed BN66, MP and MrYouKnowWho () to death...the original thread that was closed yesterday was 180+ pages long!...there is very little new to add at this moment in time...

my feeling is that there is really very little more discussion that is constructive - we all need to now sit tight and wait for MPs response to kick in...I think there is a real danger of someone dropping a B*ll*ck which could jeopardise things...any newbies who want to catch up with where we are should be pointed to the original thread...

...and I think this is a really important point...MrYouKnowWho () is still reading this...even if he doesn't learn anything more factual, he is still picking up on our mood and this may influence his method of attack in the future...he's already shown himself to be heavy-handed (jeopardy assessments! FFS!!!)...so who knows whats around the corner...if HMRC see any signs of weakness, they will go for the kill...

I say that we are close to things starting to happen re. MP...now's the time to stay quiet...

like I said...happy to be shot down in flames...

WHS++

[Emigre]

What you don't see (and it's very difficult to estimate) are the non contested reoveries. i.e. all those who don't join "schemes" or who simply agree they are inside IR35.

You are right. Perhaps the real issue is the uncertainty in the drafting of recent tax legislation. Litigation should be the exception and not the rule. Its no wonder that they are seeking external counsel help, as Brillo highlighted.

Better initial consultation will result in better drafting and maybe some of the internationals would stay rather than leave.

[ASB]

You are right. Perhaps the real issue is the uncertainty in the drafting of recent tax legislation. Litigation should be the exception and not the rule. Its no wonder that they are seeking external counsel help, as Brillo highlighted.

Better initial consultation will result in better drafting and maybe some of the internationals would stay rather than leave.

I entirely agree. Although the will of parliament is an important factor in legislation it is only supposed to be relevant when the written legislation is unclear; personally I am far from convinced that the exemption for partnership income in the DTA is unclear - but I think it was probably unintentional. It is entirely unreasonable for parliament to say "what I meant was". If that is what they meant then that is what they should have written in the legislation.