BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[silver_lining]

WHS

A couple of people have contacted me to say that talk of champagne is premature. We should be very very happy : but a long way to go and still much work to be done in way of writing to MPs and other tasks that DR is not doubt dreaming up now!

No way are we complacent : we are going to win this through hard work and toil.

Guys,

Make no mistake this is an important moment and no harm in indulging or simply being relieved somewhat and toasting to that fact. It is also worth mentioning it is great to the faces of the forum, makes it a little less informal and hence their is a important social element to building our relationship, not to mention trust.

No question we have a very long way to go. However, this is a really encouraging step for many reasons. After listening to the arguments in court, it is hard to see how HMRC are going to argue/ justify sitting on the fence for so long without taking action: simple fact. Unless they have withheld litigation or otherwise for some serious reason, which to be honest there simply cannot be one. With this simple fact in mind, it translates that retroactivity in this context has to be unfair with reference to Article 1 EU. So for many reasons I am encouraged by this.....

However, I for one believe in lots of eggs in many baskets; as such I feel we need to pursue every avenue open with the same vigor and conviction, as we simply can not rely on one channel no matter how fruitful it appears to be.

I believe, like others, one such avenue we really need to focus on is unearthing as much information in respect of how the law was debated and agreed and the criteria tests applied. Why did HMRCs strategy change... what was the catalyst... this must be recored somewhere as its quite a big diversion, strategy change.... Someone knows how to do this... or someone hear no ones someone who can shortcut this process.... i.e. over the FOI restrictions or have them justify them... the latter to degree may shed some light on what is being reserved.

No matter what MPS or parties appear to be onboard; I do not think we are naive enough not to know all MPs are self serving. We probably need to push the issue with the Conservatives to get some commit on repeal. With this in mind, I believe if we could translate the issue into a voting scenario i.e. the scheme might only affect several thousands users, but actually the wider Contracting community at large are watching with interested eyes..... and hence policy change will make people vote... I would suggest a rep from the forum to meet Mr Cameron or senior Conserv. to articulate the gain for them.... that will make them take hard committed action to undue.

SL

[smalldog]

I think its really easy to answer...

HMRC knew they would not win in court due to the incompetence and fence sitting, their only hope was to backdoor it as legislation. Now it looks like we may have our day in court their party is somewhat in tatters, Im positive thats why they were so Glum in court. There was a reason for those faces, they're F***ed and they know it. IF this was all just part of the routine and normal process that didnt pose a threat to the eventual outcome they wouldnt have cared. Them caring indicates we have a good case..

[TheBarCapBoyz]

I think its really easy to answer...

HMRC knew they would not win in court due to the incompetence and fence sitting, their only hope was to backdoor it as legislation. Now it looks like we may have our day in court their party is somewhat in tatters, Im positive thats why they were so Glum in court. There was a reason for those faces, they're F***ed and they know it. IF this was all just part of the routine and normal process that didnt pose a threat to the eventual outcome they wouldnt have cared. Them caring indicates we have a good case..

It must have been tempting at that point to launch in to the football chant...

"you're f**cked and you know you are..."

or my other favourites...

(to the HMRC QC) "go home, you might as well go home..." or "you don't know what you're doing"

or maybe

"1-0 to Montpelier; 1-0 to Montpelier."

[swede]

Moat cleaning?

Guys,

... to articulate the gain for them.... that will make them take hard committed action to undue.

SL

Does anyone know of a contractor, or a family member who would not vote Conservative currently? (Mainly because of one Mr Timm's vendetta I'd imagine). I wonder what his expense claims look like?

[silver_lining]

Does anyone know of a contractor, or a family member who would not vote Conservative currently? (Mainly because of one Mr Timm's vendetta I'd imagine). I wonder what his expense claims look like?

you may be right... but months in politics is a long time... and conservatives would be foolish to be complacent.

Votes are currency. It Is a case of getting the conservative mentality away from 'lets just do the right thing' to actually if we get this right it will translate to votes and election win....

plus to my mind, this is probably the easiest route to follow, i.e. conservatives simply repealing SA 58. We need a an 'obama' type figure to meet greet and persuade..... any good obama type figures out there with excellent sales experience

[smalldog]

do you know if anyone has done any digging on Timms expenses? If not might be time to have a quiet word in someones shell like. See if we can make some waves for him so he can see what stress of maybe losing your life for a while is like....wouldnt it be wonderful to see some sort of the headline along the lines of the treasury scretary with one hand in the till while persecuting the public.

anyone got a contact at the telegraph?

[bombaycat]

Comment from my QC friend who has reviewed our stuff a little bit

Background, my friend has HR experience and has represented the government in many many cases on immigration and HR issues, I was discussing yesterday's ruling with him a bit today.

Quote:
9 to 12 months sounds about right.

At the permission stage, the judge usually does give an immediate decision. He will have formed a view on reading the papers, and it's not difficult to recognise when there is an arguable point of law - it's rather more difficult at the second stage to decide which side's arguments are correct!

With a case like yours, it is difficult to imagine the court having any truck with a "one day out of time" argument if there is real merit in the case. "One day out of time" is more often used as an excuse by the court where it doesn't think much of the underlying case either.

Who is the QC who is acting for you? [I provided info - thanks OldITGit]
Ah, yes - I know David. You're in good hands.

I am not so sure that this will end up in the ECtHR. Based on what I have seen, there is a real argument that the retrospective effect of the legislation is a breach of Article 1 of Protocol 1. If the domestic courts can be persuaded to say that, the chances are that the government will back down. The argument would be more difficult to run if HMRC had been consistently saying through a large part of this period of time that it regarded this type of scheme as prohibited by the existing legislation, but the stuff that you've sent shows few signs of that.

But there can be no doubt that most judges will have little real sympathy for the underlying schemes and those using them. If the descriptions of what they do is correct (ie allow UK workers to avoid paying UK tax), HMRC will be regarded as completely justified in trying to crush them wherever they are found. They just have to do so without giving the impression that, as a department, they couldn't run a bath (which is an impression that HMRC is very good at giving).

[silver_lining]

do you know if anyone has done any digging on Timms expenses? If not might be time to have a quiet word in someones shell like. See if we can make some waves for him so he can see what stress of maybe losing your life for a while is like....wouldnt it be wonderful to see some sort of the headline along the lines of the treasury scretary with one hand in the till while persecuting the public.

anyone got a contact at the telegraph?

I would be very suprised if he had, as I am sure Telegraph would have seen it as a major scalp and hence tried to unearth something... if they could not.... not much hope for us !

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Thanks for posting this. It is immensely useful to get the views of an impartial legal expert.

Just a few comments.

I am not so sure that this will end up in the ECtHR. Based on what I have seen, there is a real argument that the retrospective effect of the legislation is a breach of Article 1 of Protocol 1. If the domestic courts can be persuaded to say that, the chances are that the government will back down.

This is good to know. It means it could be resolved within a year or so.

If the JCHR reach this conclusion, then it could be resolved even quicker.

The argument would be more difficult to run if HMRC had been consistently saying through a large part of this period of time that it regarded this type of scheme as prohibited by the existing legislation, but the stuff that you've sent shows few signs of that.

As we all know, HMRC only dreamt up with this argument to justify the legislation. They never mentioned it in any of the correspondence they sent to users or promoters between 2001 and 2007.

But there can be no doubt that most judges will have little real sympathy for the underlying schemes and those using them. If the descriptions of what they do is correct (ie allow UK workers to avoid paying UK tax), HMRC will be regarded as completely justified in trying to crush them wherever they are found. They just have to do so without giving the impression that, as a department, they couldn't run a bath (which is an impression that HMRC is very good at giving).

What works in our favour is here is that HMRC could have stopped the scheme ages ago. It was their decision to let it drag on for so many years, and that turned out to be a mistake. We should not be penalised for their errors of judgement.

[nevergoingtopay]

Does anyone know of a contractor, or a family member who would not vote Conservative currently? (Mainly because of one Mr Timm's vendetta I'd imagine). I wonder what his expense claims look like?

I would not vote for any of them, they are all self serving and will say anything to get elected......Lib, Lab and Cons all the same at the end of the day, in it for themselves!

Well done to all the guys who attended court!