BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[BrilloPad]

There's a bit here:
http://www.accountancyage.com/accoun...le-closed-hmrc

Someone kindly scanned the article from the Telegraph and emailed it to me.

If anyone wants a copy, drop me a line at bn66_letter@hotmail.co.uk.

Many thx for the email : much appreciated.

[BrilloPad]

THAT IS AMAZING NEWS, WE NOW HAVE CASE LAW!!!!!! DONT YOU GUYS REALISE HOW SIGNIFICANT THAT IS!!! sorry for shouting, an excited canine here.....

Sorry for the ignorance : but is it that significant?

I hope so........

[ASB]

Sorry for the ignorance : but is it that significant?

I hope so........

I don't **think** so because it was based on different facts and statute. It was based on specific aspects of the DTA between Mauritius and UK. (Assuming it's the First case you refer to. The sempra case would appear more relevant in my view).

[smalldog]

i think the HMRC losing any case related to offshore tax loophole closures is very significant, evne if not identical its gonna make them think twice about going thru the courts and possibly losing once again....

[BrilloPad]

I don't **think** so because it was based on different facts and statute. It was based on specific aspects of the DTA between Mauritius and UK. (Assuming it's the First case you refer to. The sempra case would appear more relevant in my view).

We can only hope the IOM/UK agreement is similar........

[SantaClaus]

i think the HMRC losing any case related to offshore tax loophole closures is very significant, evne if not identical its gonna make them think twice about going thru the courts and possibly losing once again....

I agree. Any case that HMRC loses show their weakness in putting forward convincing legal arguments.

Maybe they'll even quit this nonsense before they receive an avalanche of DPA requests too

[helen7]

Did HMRC loose this one based on the workings of the scheme being deemed valid or; the retrospective changes by HMRC?

If the latter, this hopefully this would be very close to being case law. (how would it be deemed valid to close 1 scheme retrospectively and not another)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I agree. Any case that HMRC loses show their weakness in putting forward convincing legal arguments.

Maybe they'll even quit this nonsense before they receive an avalanche of DPA requests too

I suspect they are pinning their hopes on the JR being rejected at the oral hearing.

The more I learn about this case the more I realise how far HMRC/Treasury have gone out on a limb on this one.

How do they justify applying retrospective legislation to this scheme when every other arrangement (eg. BN60 FB2009) has been closed prospectively? There is nothing exceptional about our scheme compared with the myriad of other schemes they have closed over the years.

Hopefully, when we can get hold of the case files from HMRC/Treasury under FOI we might finally discover why the scheme was singled out for unfair and disproportionate treatment.

[poppy01]

I suspect they are pinning their hopes on the JR being rejected at the oral hearing.

The more I learn about this case the more I realise how far HMRC/Treasury have gone out on a limb on this one.

How do they justify applying retrospective legislation to this scheme when every other arrangement (eg. BN60 FB2009) has been closed prospectively? There is nothing exceptional about our scheme compared with the myriad of other schemes they have closed over the years.

Hopefully, when we can get hold of the case files from HMRC/Treasury under FOI we might finally discover why the scheme was singled out for unfair and disproportionate treatment.

if the JR is rejected is it game over for us, or can we then pin our hopes on the echr

[DonkeyRhubarb]

if the JR is rejected is it game over for us, or can we then pin our hopes on the echr

I don't know what Montp would do next but you can bet it wouldn't be "game over". PwC are not going to let this drop either, after all their class action is largely being funded by one property developer who has £60M riding on it.

HMRC/Treasury have seriously underestimated the opposition, and especially us.