BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[ASB]

As far as I'm aware, there is nothing stopping the losing party from appealing against the decision of the High Court. I'm sure HMRC will do this if they lose.

If my memory serve me correctly:-

- At the first hearing this establishes the facts (these then become immutable; i.e. you can't find any more evidence and introduce it later [unless it is a criminal hearing]). The judge then finds one way or other. As part of thier judgment they will refuse leave to appeal (they don't have to do this; this means there isn't an automatic right of appeal).

- Assuming the judge did not grant leave to appeal one part who wants to appeal has to get a hearing in front of another judge. They need to show an arguable case that the law was incorrectly applied to the facts. If this occurs then the right to appeal is granted and everybody moves onto the next court.

Now repeat until either everybody accepts whatever verdict was (or runs out of money!) or there are no more UK courts to appeal to.

I'm not entirely sure how getting to the ECHR works though.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If my memory serve me correctly:-

- At the first hearing this establishes the facts (these then become immutable; i.e. you can't find any more evidence and introduce it later [unless it is a criminal hearing]). The judge then finds one way or other. As part of thier judgment they will refuse leave to appeal (they don't have to do this; this means there isn't an automatic right of appeal).

Any idea what happens if several parties have applied for a JR as in our case ie. MontP, DeGraaf, PwC, KPMG? My understanding is first applicant's case (MontP) is heard first and others are set on one side.

This is why I think it's a good move that it looks like all the parties are going to collaborate, so no evidence or arguments are overlooked.

[ASB]

Any idea what happens if several parties have applied for a JR as in our case ie. MontP, DeGraaf, PwC, KPMG? My understanding is first applicant's case (MontP) is heard first and others are set on one side.

This is why I think it's a good move that it looks like all the parties are going to collaborate, so no evidence or arguments are overlooked.

Not really. My belief is that only one will be heard. But my concern with this would be that it does need a bit of a get together to ensure that all grounds are explored. It would be shameful if I couldn't get a JR under argument "b" simply because yours failed under argument "a".

[MrRaincheck]

I was reading previous posts and was shocked to learn that one of the members had a visit from the Baliffs. How can there be such poor communication between the local compliance office and HMRC themselves? I decided to go down the offset route and have no CTD. Montp have already told me that my appeals for all my years (4 in total) have been acknowledges (I am waiting for my pin for Gov gateway to check myself). Given this scenario it still appears that the heavies could call round at some point? I think my wife would freak out if she were alone when it happened. Whats the best course of action - just not let them in and tell them to get lost / call the police? - then call Montp? Also if during the JR the right to appeal is waived and we lose - is that game over for us all at that point.
I know my questions are a bit doom and gloom, I am howver still positive about the outcome and really apppreciate the support this forum gives.

[Squicker]

Not really. My belief is that only one will be heard. But my concern with this would be that it does need a bit of a get together to ensure that all grounds are explored. It would be shameful if I couldn't get a JR under argument "b" simply because yours failed under argument "a".

Yes but when MP go forward with their appeal, if they have co-operated with the other schemes who have grievances, they can present the whole lot as evidence for their case, can't they? So any collaboration now is good collaboration.

Ben

[BrilloPad]

I was reading previous posts and was shocked to learn that one of the members had a visit from the Baliffs. How can there be such poor communication between the local compliance office and HMRC themselves? I decided to go down the offset route and have no CTD. Montp have already told me that my appeals for all my years (4 in total) have been acknowledges (I am waiting for my pin for Gov gateway to check myself). Given this scenario it still appears that the heavies could call round at some point? I think my wife would freak out if she were alone when it happened. Whats the best course of action - just not let them in and tell them to get lost / call the police? - then call Montp? Also if during the JR the right to appeal is waived and we lose - is that game over for us all at that point.
I know my questions are a bit doom and gloom, I am howver still positive about the outcome and really apppreciate the support this forum gives.

The heavies could come round. don't let them in and tell them (the bailiffs) to get in touch with the local compliance inspector.

Apparantly the bailiffs/collectors are supposed to check with the local compliance office if it's ok for them to make the visit but unfortunatly that bit of the chain seems to not be happening.

Problem is that there are 2 separate depts with two diff systems.... crazy or what???

I prefer not to discuss the JR until we know the outcome. Else there are too many ifs and buts.....

[orientalist]

I was reading previous posts and was shocked to learn that one of the members had a visit from the Baliffs. How can there be such poor communication between the local compliance office and HMRC themselves? I decided to go down the offset route and have no CTD. Montp have already told me that my appeals for all my years (4 in total) have been acknowledges (I am waiting for my pin for Gov gateway to check myself). Given this scenario it still appears that the heavies could call round at some point? I think my wife would freak out if she were alone when it happened. Whats the best course of action - just not let them in and tell them to get lost / call the police? - then call Montp? Also if during the JR the right to appeal is waived and we lose - is that game over for us all at that point.
I know my questions are a bit doom and gloom, I am howver still positive about the outcome and really apppreciate the support this forum gives.

Hi all,
thanks for the support, Raincheck don't get unduly worried, HMRC calling at my house was an admin issue, easily resolved. Remember to keep this all in perspective, it's not personal, its a disagreement as to where numbers on a form should be, if we're right then holidays in dubai and shopping at Fortnum's if not then Jaywick and aldi's. Best advice if they call, as has been stated, refer them to the compliance officer and it will get sorted. let's hope for a speedy resolution so we can all get clarity and move on.
Hopefully, Oriental.
By the way gin and red wine help a lot.

[dezze]

Out of interest....

...and maybe linked to BN66...

How do the City bonuses work? There must have been schemes for the high earners that used the DTA route? If so, there must be quite a few very highly paid city types that could get hammered by this legislation. Not sure Mr Brown would want to upset this lot?

May be totally wrong of course...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Montpelier Circular

In the December letter, we were promised we'd get one every month from now on.

So what's happened to January's installment?

I think we would all like to know a bit more about what's going on behind the scenes.

PS. apparently I was a bit hasty and it has not been forgotten

[Toocan]

...and maybe linked to BN66...

How do the City bonuses work? There must have been schemes for the high earners that used the DTA route? If so, there must be quite a few very highly paid city types that could get hammered by this legislation. Not sure Mr Brown would want to upset this lot?

May be totally wrong of course...

Here is another good question:

HMRC's online manual states that HMRC were told that their fix following the Padmore case may not work. That was 1987. HMRC claim there have been no DTA claims till 2001. Are we really to believe that, while it was recognised that this scheme existed in 1987, nobody used it?

It just doesn't ring true to my ear.