BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[smalldog]

But this legislation was formulated in 2007 when the economy was booming

I obviously dont disagree, just not sure what Angle they can attack us from, bit perplexing for me....Unless there is underlying comms between HMRC and Montp we have never been privy too stating they intend to shut this down retrospectively and we were never told??

Suspect they will also try and use the Clarify, but as even ministers are using the words retrospective thats gonna be a tough one to argue

[Alan Jones]

bn66.co.uk

((E) I'm afraid I don't accept that bn66.co.uk has nothing to do with you. I have heard from someone who has spoken to you about the "solution". They even showed me a copy of a Barrister's opinion that you sought in relation to it.

As i said before i have no say/input/ownership of bn66.co.uk.
I did [and do from time to time] provide some tax advice and obtained the legal opinion from a QC.

[bollox]

I obviously dont disagree, just not sure what Angle they can attack us from, bit perplexing for me....Unless there is underlying comms between HMRC and Montp we have never been privy too stating they intend to shut this down retrospectively and we were never told??

Suspect they will also try and use the Clarify, but as even ministers are using the words retrospective thats gonna be a tough one to argue

yes the pessimist in me thinks that they must have more to their case than they are letting onto

surely when devising this legislation they must have known that it would have been appealed against on HR grounds and must have needed a credible defence against it (dont think "we were trying to pay less tax" or whatever it is stands up )

or were they perhaps just hoping that mtm would just fold and disappear like other scheme providers and leave us all stranded ?

[smalldog]

yes the pessimist in me thinks that they must have more to their case than they are letting onto

surely when devising this legislation they must have known that it would have been appealed against on HR grounds and must have needed a credible defence against it (dont think "we were trying to pay less tax" or whatever it is stands up )

or were they perhaps just hoping that mtm would just fold and disappear like other scheme providers and leave us all stranded ?

I actually think HMRC were hedging and hoping some of us would just cough up....thats cos they seem to think we are all millionaires with cash just sloshing around...

"Here you go hector, heres a nice big fat cheque for my CN, as Im so rich I cant be bothered to contest it, oh and by the way would you like an extra couple of grand to help with the coffers?"

[SantaClaus]

I actually think HMRC were hedging and hoping some of us would just cough up....thats cos they seem to think we are all millionaires with cash just sloshing around...

"Here you go hector, heres a nice big fat cheque for my CN, as Im so rich I cant be bothered to contest it, oh and by the way would you like an extra couple of grand to help with the coffers?"

Well any money that goes to Hector from me will be received back when I am a benefit claimant

[smalldog]

me too, I will probably fire myself for gross tax misconduct and go on the dole...

[silver_lining]

What compelling facts/evidence/arguments could HMRC possibly have in their defence? I'm struggling to think of any.

Anyone care to play devils advocate?

I think we have a really decent chance; but I have no doubt HMRC and indeed their counsel, have silver bullets lined up; I am hopeful we do too....

In terms of the whole 1987 'partner' legal meaning and 'when it suits' extensions of that legal meaning; this is a risky dependancy for success as there is obviously different tax counsel opinion on this matter, as such I feel this one will hang in the hands of the judges interpretation.

In terms of the HR issue, this is hard to defend for HMRC and hopefully be will be area that swings it. But we normal Joes must suspend the what appears to be the obvious moral and unfair issues i.e. HMRC sitting on the fence and doing sweet FA about it for many years; it simply has to be demonstrated legally this voliates HR with legal example and/ or possible precedent. Again, there are cases in both camps for and against... so its a going to be a tough battle. This proved to be case in the last hearing we were at... but on that day we got our JR review :-)

In the end, I believe it will boil down to counsels delivery; I am confident if we have the same QC we have a good chance. I feel a slight niggle of concern that the 'Joe Public' view with the economic back drop; which if it hangs on knife edge could swing it for HMRC.

I am kind of hoping MTM have something new before hand. Maybe Mr Jones could do us and undoubtedly himself some favours by helping the cause.

SL

[OnYourBikeGB]

I darent play devils advocate...I might just come up with a better defence than the p!ss-poor one they have at the moment...

I think if they had any silver bullet up their sleeve, we'd have known by now. This stage is about whether or not they had the right to make the legislation retrospective, correct me if I'm wrong, not about whether it was legal in itself. If they had a silver bullet to stop it here and now, it would have been fired. Instead, the best they could do is come up with a technical argument on why its a day late. If they could have stopped the JR, they would have done it to save face and the publics money. Let's not get ourselves too worried about what we don't know. They had plenty of time to think before the hearing for the JR, and they came up with sweet FA. We shouldn't underestimate our opponents, but we shouldn't distract ourselves with fear either.

[smalldog]

I think if they had any silver bullet up their sleeve, we'd have known by now. This stage is about whether or not they had the right to make the legislation retrospective, correct me if I'm wrong, not about whether it was legal in itself. If they had a silver bullet to stop it here and now, it would have been fired. Instead, the best they could do is come up with a technical argument on why its a day late. If they could have stopped the JR, they would have done it to save face and the publics money. Let's not get ourselves too worried about what we don't know. They had plenty of time to think before the hearing for the JR, and they came up with sweet FA. We shouldn't underestimate our opponents, but we shouldn't distract ourselves with fear either.

here here!!

[poppy01]

As i said before i have no say/input/ownership of bn66.co.uk.
I did [and do from time to time] provide some tax advice and obtained the legal opinion from a QC.

Hello Alan,
We've met before though you wont remember me. I know some things have been said on this forum that you may not have liked but I hope you appreciate a lots at stake here and there is a general feeling that you have been behind a lot of our current situation. I appreciate you coming on the forum to fight your corner. I dont know if you hold any hard feelings towards us for whats been said. I just cant figure out why you've come on board now. If you wish to contribute to our cause in any way, I suspect you may have some damning evidence up your sleeve.