BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[Lazylobster]

Keep cool people. I'm sure the QC will be able to discuss this with the judge and make him / her see sense about the process.

I'm not worried if it was a day or two late.

LL

[helen7]

Keep cool people. I'm sure the QC will be able to discuss this with the judge and make him / her see sense about the process.

I'm not worried if it was a day or two late.

LL

A bit hard to keep cool when you are going to loose your house and savings because somebody didn't send off a piece of paper in time.

At the end of the day, if the submission is late the judge has no option but to throw it out, just as he did yesterday.

[PurpleTurtle]

If MP are a day late with this I am livid
PLease tell me that is not so?

[smalldog]

I want to know how Silver Lining found this out, a lot of us were unaware of this CRUCIAL F***ING FACT!!!!!? First Ive heard????

[ContractIn]

Thanks Emigre and DR for attending and providing the updates.

I can see the positives going forward, but have some concerns:

Does HMRC see this as they have won R2?
Will MTM get the same judge on the 16th?
Did MTM get the application in in time?
What are the chances that HMRC get this through the Commissioners tribunal route?

If I were PWC client I would be livid!

Following from my post yesterday, I did not get a warm feel about yesterdays events at all.

All we need now on the 16th is a different judge with differing view and who follows the previous form and will save a lot of time by throwing this one out due to the same technicality.

Lets just hope that he will take into account the received CN and will overlook the late submission. As someone previously said HMRC have relied on this technicality many times in the past and won.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

A bit hard to keep cool when you are going to loose your house and savings because somebody didn't send off a piece of paper in time.

At the end of the day, if the submission is late the judge has no option but to throw it out, just as he did yesterday.

I think we are all fretting over nothing.

a) I don't believe a day is going to make any difference. The Judge has discretion. After all, if that wasn't the case PwC wouldn't even have got a hearing. And it wouldn't have lasted 3 hours. And he wouldn't have deferred a ruling on the HRA incompatibility until after our hearing.

b) It is only one day late from the enactment of the Finance Bill. It is within 3 months of Huitson receiving closure notices (I have confirmed this for definite.) So, if HMRC want to play silly buggers, then Montp can use the CNs as the triggering event.

I firmly believe this is a non-issue.

[silver_lining]

Chaps, apologies if I came across overly negative, did not mean it to read that way. Just want to open about our setbacks and learn from them. Its just another chapter... we move on.

In terms of he said she said, don't really want to get into naming individuals. However, to the lay man, the simple fact is that it is a set back. If for no other reason than merely encouraging HMRC.

But, and really need to stress this point…….. the judge indicated that he was not comfortable with the Human Rights compatibility... to my mind this is very encouraging news as after all that’s basis of our case.... Now that we have evidence from the LJ that the Human Rights angle is strong, MP can concentrate on this and make it more effective.

In terms of the discussions on delay, HMRC advised LJ that our case was rooted in the Human Rights legalisation and they initially said delay was not going to be contested; but after quick consultation, they then informed LJ is was a day late. That said the judge sorted of raised his eyes, when it was highlighted it was a day late, i.e. not giving it much notice... so maybe he won't give it any weight. In any case, we have closure notices, so to be honest I am not overly worried about the delay in our case as its not rooted to our challenge were it was inextricable linked to PWCs.

So as Emigre says, very long way to go regardless of what happens on the 16th. In my opinion, the JR is there for the taking on the 16th but the QC and MP need to be on the ball. The MP QC if I recall correct has a very impressive background and would expect him to nail it... We should use our influence and connections to ensure as much as we can that everything is as it should be. I for one made assumptions i.e. that PWC would at least know the detail of our case and in particular the closure notice element, but alas they did not.

DR or anyone speaks to MP, can you confirm the QCs name and if it is the same guy that works for Landmark Chambers…?

So chin up guys... don't deflate, that’s exactly what they are hoping and no doubt there will be more hills and troughs, but as long as we end up on the hill we are happy !

[theoctopus]

great work guys and double thanks to those who could attend. sadly I was over in the 'Emerald' isle for the last few days and couldnt attend myself. roll on the 16th.

[Ratican]

PWC Hearing

I was in court yesterday.

Just to be clear about what was said regarding the MontP delay. It was submitted late (by one day) and it was HMRC’s QC (Singh) that told this to the LJ (Lord Justice) (after the LJ asked if there were any problems with the next [MontP] hearing). The LJ looked like he dismissed this (his expression was as if to say “come on… 1 day…”). So, it looks like they are going to use this in their defence. But remember at the moment, this is only what HMRC have said - MontP may well have a very good reason for the delay.

The MontP representative we met didn’t seem to be too phased by it. Regardless of the reasons for the delay - he thinks 1 day won’t really matter due the importance of the case and the Judge has the right to overlook it. Also the fact that our guy has a closure notice should help (not 100% sure why – but they could maybe claim that for their JR submission the Closure notice is the “thing” that triggered the application – not the date the legislation made it onto the statute books).

PWC presented their case based on the 18th August Letter (I presume because they missed the legislation deadline). Their application was in time for this. However the main thrust of their [compelling] argument related to the retrospective nature of the legislation and the incompatibility of the legislation with ECJ law.

The application was late for the legislation and retrospective aspects and the letter came down to the wording and was subjective. That is why the JR was refused.

I felt that he would have liked to have granted the JR – but the delay was significant enough for him to deny it on the legislative/retrospective grounds – although I think he has deferred one decision until after the 16th June hearing.

I didn’t leave the court feeling too disappointed. The LJ said a few things that were reassuring – like “.. it is the right of every taxpayer to arrange there affairs in a manner that minimises the tax they have to pay…” and “I can see this ending up in Luxemburg…”.

I don't know the exact details of why the JR application was delayed and I really do hope it doesn't become the reason for another rejection.

The PWC QC did mention that there are another 4 JR hearings listed regarding Section 58 (including ours).

It is difficult to explain why - but I am still fairly positive. Remember that the LJ thinks this will end up in Luxemburg or Strasburg eventually. We just have a few more hurdles to clear first.

The MontP QC and the person we met sound excellent. MontP are going to go in on the 16th with "..guns blazing" (their words).

Please correct me if I am wrong on any of my points... it was a long day followed by many pints in the pub across from the court.

[kiwinlondon]

I think we are all fretting over nothing.

a) I don't believe a day is going to make any difference. The Judge has discretion. After all, if that wasn't the case PwC wouldn't even have got a hearing. And it wouldn't have lasted 3 hours. And he wouldn't have deferred a ruling on the HRA incompatibility until after our hearing.

b) It is only one day late from the enactment of the Finance Bill. It is within 3 months of Huitson receiving closure notices (I have confirmed this for definite.) So, if HMRC want to play silly buggers, then Montp can use the CNs as the triggering event.

I firmly believe this is a non-issue.

Spoke to a tax consulatant mate and he agreed not great that its a day late but it often happens and wont be a show stopper at all....

Often happens when calculating the dates.. ie does it take effect on the day of enactment or from the day of enactment.. ie 31st or 1st .. hope im making sense!

As long as MP council has things all lined up it should be a fun day in court for us!!