BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[poppy01]

I suspect a general anti-avoidance rule is retrospecive legislation by another name. If it was that simple, they would have done it by now.

That said, they may well try.

what they will have to do is admit there are some very clever people out there who can sniff out loopholes in their tax law. then (and I believe this is what used to happen) they shrug their shoulders, say goddamit, and close the loophole using legislation. No argument from anyone.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If this is for real and I've no reason to think otherwise, how will this affect our appeals. In the unlikely event the JR goes against us, surely it is legitimate to expect the process to then await the outcome of the ECHR case?

Does this give us even more time is what I'm getting at.

Trust me, it's for real.

Can the JR even go ahead if a case is going to ECHR? I assume the High Court is a "lower court" in this context. Perhaps it depends on whether the JR takes place before the ECHR case is filed.

By the way, I've just been tipped off about yet another case which I will share once I've got more details.

The lawyers must be rubbing their hands together over this.

[xantamisch]

Latest I have from de graaf

they expect JR to be in about a year - not feb........
they are supporting MP rather than separate JR as this (they say) would unnecessarily clog up and delay the legal process
remain confident we will win



so what to do - have to say i am tempted to pay my 07 / 08 amount and hope to get it back............. any thoughts on this

I understand interest is payable at 4.5% - seems I can get 5% in a savings account so after tax it is fairly close. Any idea what the penalties etc might be?

speaking to a Financial Adviser friend last night. Don't want to poo on the parade, but he said they were promoting a tax avoidance scheme a few years back. When it came to the courts, HMRC won because they had more money to spend on big cheese lawyers.......

[BrilloPad]

Trust me, it's for real.

Can the JR even go ahead if a case is going to ECHR? I assume the High Court is a "lower court" in this context. Perhaps it depends on whether the JR takes place before the ECHR case is filed.

By the way, I've just been tipped off about yet another case which I will share once I've got more details.

The lawyers must be rubbing their hands together over this.

I hate lawyers. I have some very old posts on cuk about how much I hate the blood sucking vermin. And with fathers4justice I had a very interesting history with them : no more details or PC plum will definetly be paying me a visit.

But if we win then the lawyers will be worth every penny and I will kiss their feet! May god smile upon their efforts.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Letter from Stephen Timms

Just this morning received a letter from Stephen Timms (Jane Kennedy's replacement) via my local MP.

I won't trouble you with the details because it is just the usual fobbing off and hand wringing.

However, he does mention that the government are aware of the JR proceedings that have been instigated.

Of course, what he doesn't know is that this is only the half of it, and there is a load more brown stuff heading their way.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Another Case

In addition to the ECHR case, I have just been tipped off about another proceeding.

Another big firm is mounting a challenge, and this one is quite interesting. Apparently, they have specific details of concessions (deals) that HMRC have done in the past. Remember, once an enquiry has been closed, it cannot be re-opened, so these deals cannot be undone.

Their contention is that the legislation is by defacto discriminatory in that not all people who have used the scheme are being treated equally.

I think it is going to be very difficult for HMRC/Treasury to square this particular circle.

[BrilloPad]

Excellent work DR!

Can I ask if the MDs at montp are aware of these details? Specifically JC and WG?

I am sure someone used to send anonymous emails around (we never did find out who) : I wonder if they have been at work yet?

Can we expect to see JC or WG registering and making an official comment? I am sure we are all grateful for the promise of a monthly letter : but it would be nice if they opened a dialog with us.

[PlaneSailing]

Another way out?

In addition to the ECHR case, I have just been tipped off about another proceeding.

Another big firm is mounting a challenge, and this one is quite interesting. Apparently, they have specific details of concessions (deals) that HMRC have done in the past. Remember, once an enquiry has been closed, it cannot be re-opened, so these deals cannot be undone.

Their contention is that the legislation is by defacto discriminatory in that not all people who have used the scheme are being treated equally.

I think it is going to be very difficult for HMRC/Treasury to square this particular circle.

DR, thanks for this. This is very interesting, as it is a genuinely different
line of attack.

With this, and the ECHR case, there is suddenly a lot of noise around. I wonder if the legal fraternity have spotted a sitting duck and chance to
take the Revenue to task over this nonsense?

[Toocan]

so what to do - have to say i am tempted to pay my 07 / 08 amount and hope to get it back............. any thoughts on this


speaking to a Financial Adviser friend last night. Don't want to poo on the parade, but he said they were promoting a tax avoidance scheme a few years back. When it came to the courts, HMRC won because they had more money to spend on big cheese lawyers.......

If you pay on account - it could be a very long time before they give it back to you. A Certificate of Tax Deposit would be a safer bet.

As for HMRC winning because of the cost - too many big players are involved in this scheme. HMRC have issued the challenge and they have a 'el of a fight on their hands now.

I might even enjoy watching this....

[Toocan]

In addition to the ECHR case, I have just been tipped off about another proceeding.

Another big firm is mounting a challenge, and this one is quite interesting. Apparently, they have specific details of concessions (deals) that HMRC have done in the past. Remember, once an enquiry has been closed, it cannot be re-opened, so these deals cannot be undone.

Their contention is that the legislation is by defacto discriminatory in that not all people who have used the scheme are being treated equally.

I think it is going to be very difficult for HMRC/Treasury to square this particular circle.

This ties in with what Jane Kennedy said at the committee, in that HMRC had not always made the case consistently. It just gets better and better. Who is running HMRC? It appears they couldn't organise themselves out of a paper bag! No wonder the government are bankrupt.