BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The case against HMRC/Govt

The Government has claimed that the use of retrospective legislation was justified in this case because it was always intended by Parliament that the original 1987 Act (Padmore) would apply to this type of scheme.

If this is the case then:

1. WHY did HMRC never mention this in any of the numerous letters they sent to users between 2003 and 2007?
2. WHY did HMRC not proceed with litigation on the basis of the 1987 legislation?
3. WHY did HMRC allow the number of users under enquiry to grow from around 200 in 2003 to well over 500 in 2005 without taking any action?
4. WHY did HMRC make concessions to some users, and allow them to benefit from a tax advantage if they believed the scheme was unlawful?
5. WHY did the Government include the following statement in the notes accompanying Section 858 ITTOIA 2005 if they believed that the 1987 legislation applied to schemes other than the one specifically used by Mr Padmore?

“It was intended, in the case of income tax, that the 1987 legislation should do no more than remove the exemption claimed in the Padmore case.”

Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it you lying bastards!!!

[ContractIn]

The Government has claimed that the use of retrospective legislation was justified in this case because it was always intended by Parliament that the original 1987 Act (Padmore) would apply to this type of scheme.

If this is the case then:

1. WHY did HMRC never mention this in any of the numerous letters they sent to users between 2003 and 2007?
2. WHY did HMRC not proceed with litigation on the basis of the 1987 legislation?
3. WHY did HMRC allow the number of users under enquiry to grow from around 200 in 2003 to well over 500 in 2005 without taking any action?
4. WHY did HMRC make concessions to some users, and allow them to benefit from a tax advantage if they believed the scheme was unlawful?
5. WHY did the Government include the following statement in the notes accompanying Section 858 ITTOIA 2005 if they believed that the 1987 legislation applied to schemes other than the one specifically used by Mr Padmore?

“It was intended, in the case of income tax, that the 1987 legislation should do no more than remove the exemption claimed in the Padmore case.”

Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it you lying bastards!!!

MTM should put you on the payroll.

Why was none of this submitted in the original JR application? Surely if it was then MTM would have been granted a JR date not a rejection.

[BrilloPad]

Re the refusal......

The judge must know it is up to parliament to enact and the courts to interpret. As a judge he is undermining the courts and his own position. I can only think he is close to retirement and up for a gong.

Personally I now put more faith in Europe where there is less chance of government influence.

This is going to be a rough ride : but we already knew that.....

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Volunteer needed

I have been working with a couple of other people to come up with a stonking letter to send to the Government. We have already written to our MPs, so we can't use it.

If anyone out there hasn't written to their MP already, and would like to send this letter, please PM me.

Thanks,
DR

[ASB]

I have been working with a couple of other people to come up with a stonking letter to send to the Government. We have already written to our MPs, so we can't use it.

If anyone out there hasn't written to their MP already, and would like to send this letter, please PM me.

Thanks,
DR

DR as you know I'm not in the scheme, but I'd be happy to send it as a generally interested and concerned party to my MP. Though you will probably get better candidates of course.

[BrilloPad]

Anyway : hats off to montp. They are keeping us informed. Plenty more battles to be fought yet and they seem to be up for a good pagga.

[poppy01]

Anyway : hats off to montp. They are keeping us informed. Plenty more battles to be fought yet and they seem to be up for a good pagga.

this is devastating news... I didnt even know there was a stage where application had to be granted... we are being denied justice at every turn...
why dont HMRC just line us up against a wall and shoot us all, it would be a kindness

[BrilloPad]

why dont HMRC just line us up against a wall and shoot us all, it would be a kindness

Because they like bullying. They dont want us dead : just to suffer.

This is a long way from over. Lets get off the ropes and come out fighting**

BP
** for the hard of understanding (hmrc, police, mods) I should point out this is a boxing term and I mean fight via the courts. Isn't there any way of stopping stupid people from viewing this thread?

[silver_lining]

what next.....

DR, you raise some pertinent cutting questions.

This was always going to be a really difficult hurdle for MP to overcome via a written JR submission. From what I can see on the letter from MP received today; the High Courts first reason for refusal rests squarely on one's interpretation of the word 'partner'. Obviously HMRC/ Government are pushing a subjective extended meaning coupled with their argument of intention, which may or may not seem obvious when reviewed depending on your position.

Our opinion is obviously that the word partner in this context has nothing but its normal meaning. The High Court have now made their position categoric and they disagree. The re-submission of the JR and the fact its an oral submission will certainly help to convince the High Court otherwise. However IMHO, this specific point is going to be an up hill battle as we now have HMRC/ Government and High Court at least agreeing on this particular point and MP apparently have no evidence to prove a different interpretation has already been demonstrated.

Regarding the High Courts second reason as per MP's letter; the implication behind this reason suggests MP as part of their JR request have suggested, or in fact stated, that other taxpayers were treated favorably. Common sense would lead one to believe that MP must have evidence to back this up or are going out on a limb in the hope that they may have obtained evidence in time for the JR hearing.

This is again a vulnerable position as MP are relying on HMRC to be forthcoming with this evidence, if in fact it exists. Alternatively MP or an alternative firm with a common interest may have the respective individuals as clients, and quite possibly the respective client/s are willing to be a representative examples for MP in this instance. I do hope they have independent evidence and are not relying solely on HMRC cooperation.

So in short, todays news its a big blow, but if nothing else, it quite clearly presents the challenge now facing MP and other interested parties.

One point MP did not make clear; does this now mean HMRC can look to recover the money immediately, or does the resubmission mean nothing has changed in respect of its clients appeals?

SL

[smalldog]

DR, you raise some pertinent cutting questions.

This was always going to be a really difficult hurdle for MP to overcome via a written JR submission. From what I can see on the letter from MP received today; the High Courts first reason for refusal rests squarely on one's interpretation of the word 'partner'. Obviously HMRC/ Government are pushing a subjective extended meaning coupled with their argument of intention, which may or may not seem obvious when reviewed depending on your position.

Our opinion is obviously that the word partner in this context has nothing but its normal meaning. The High Court have now made their position categoric and they disagree. The re-submission of the JR and the fact its an oral submission will certainly help to convince the High Court otherwise. However IMHO, this specific point is going to be an up hill battle as we now have HMRC/ Government and High Court at least agreeing on this particular point and MP apparently have no evidence to prove a different interpretation has already been demonstrated.

Regarding the High Courts second reason as per MP's letter; the implication behind this reason suggests MP as part of their JR request have suggested, or in fact stated, that other taxpayers were treated favorably. Common sense would lead one to believe that MP must have evidence to back this up or are going out on a limb in the hope that they may have obtained evidence in time for the JR hearing.

This is again a vulnerable position as MP are relying on HMRC to be forthcoming with this evidence, if in fact it exists. Alternatively MP or an alternative firm with a common interest may have the respective individuals as clients, and quite possibly the respective client/s are willing to be a representative examples for MP in this instance. I do hope they have independent evidence and are not relying solely on HMRC cooperation.

So in short, todays news its a big blow, but if nothing else, it quite clearly presents the challenge now facing MP and other interested parties.

One point MP did not make clear; does this now mean HMRC can look to recover the money immediately, or does the resubmission mean nothing has changed in respect of its clients appeals?

SL

The way I read the letter was that the commissioners decide on the appeal, the JR and courts are different things. I dont however know if the commissioners are/were waiting for the outcome of the JR and could (?) now reject all appeals out of hand? questions questions...