BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[nuffsaid]

And afterwards...

When we win this hearing (ignoring appeals) it will presumeably only put things back to how they were, i.e. MontP/Others will still have to prove that the scheme is not caught by the original wording?

Can hector change their angle of attack or do they have to stick with it?

Also, will BN66/ECHR have helped us in anyway or will it have just simply been a stressful delay?

[srhcompcon]

When we win this hearing (ignoring appeals) it will presumeably only put things back to how they were, i.e. MontP/Others will still have to prove that the scheme is not caught by the original wording?

Can hector change their angle of attack or do they have to stick with it?

Also, will BN66/ECHR have helped us in anyway or will it have just simply been a stressful delay?

I think one of the posts did mention that, if they lose, they may still persue under the original terms (but would look foolish for not having done sooner). Who knows whether a change of govennment would have an impact?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

When we win this hearing (ignoring appeals) it will presumeably only put things back to how they were, i.e. MontP/Others will still have to prove that the scheme is not caught by the original wording?

Can hector change their angle of attack or do they have to stick with it?

Also, will BN66/ECHR have helped us in anyway or will it have just simply been a stressful delay?

According to HMRC's testimony to the JR, they were highly confident they would have won through litigation, and they only introduced the legislation to avoid uncertainty. (No comment!)

In any case, there is a much bigger prize at stake than just going after us ie. the precedent for using retrospective legislation to target future tax avoidance.

I therefore think it's much more likely they will appeal the JR ruling than go back to their original arguments for why they didn't think the scheme worked.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Most of the action will take place on Day 1

Just wondering do we think it will go to three days..

planning on attending at some stage, wondering whether D1 D2 or D3 is best option...

thoughts..?

I have consulted with our legal team, and they can't see it going to 3 days.

In fact, they reckon most of the arguments will be concluded on the first day. The 2nd day may finish early.

They have advised the Court that there could be considerable interest in the case.

[PlaneSailing]

I have consulted with our legal team, and they can't see it going to 3 days.

In fact, they reckon most of the arguments will be concluded on the first day. The 2nd day may finish early.

They have advised the Court that there could be considerable interest in the case.

Do you think that it may run short because the Revenue don't have much to say?

[BrilloPad]

They have advised the Court that there could be considerable interest in the case.

Excellent. Judges love an audience. Most of the time no-one cares what they say.

If someone asks they will happily open up the solicitors benches for extra supporters.

Dont forget to laugh at all of their "jokes".

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Do you think that it may run short because the Revenue don't have much to say?

If their testimony is anything to go by, the Revenue will have plenty to say, probably along the lines of:

Yeah, but no, but yeah, but...

I don't expect it will take long for our Counsel to present the case.

[ROBIN REDBREAST]

...

and hopefully the judge will say no, but no, but no, but... to HMRC!! Not long to go now, my good lady keeps asking how long before we can resume a normal family life without this cloud hanging over us...i suspect this will not go away for some time, regardless of who wins...!????

If their testimony is anything to go by, the Revenue will have plenty to say, probably along the lines of:

Yeah, but no, but yeah, but...

I don't expect it will take long for our Counsel to present the case.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Now that the Hour has come

All,

After a long journey down the Road to Judicial Review and in no small part, due to the efforts of DR without whom, it is probable that we would all be in a less aware position than we find ourselves today. Thankyou DR.

As for the events that unfold over the coming days, and for those at HMRC who may still be looking in on our small corner of democracy albeit with some confusion or consternation I offer this.

When I joined the scheme which is now at the eye of the BN66 storm, I did so with eyes wide open, I researched all that was practicle and found no reason for why HMRC would rule that the scheme did not work under the guise of BN66 / 1987 legislation or Padmore. I also found that unlike the claims often made which clouds avoidance with evasion and as noted by the OECD, transparency is key. This scheme was founded on that principle and as such accepted that with faith in our authorities, such disclosure, long before disclosure rules were introduced, were enough to rely on our authorities to determine if an act, any act, was lawful or not. Surely there is no greater merit than to be open and honest to the law and to be judged on that alone.

Tonight when I put my 2 year old daughter to sleep, I wondered what her future may be if she was to look at a direction that was not automatically given to her, that she may seek to better herself via open and honest means, declare herself able to do more, reduce her dependency on the state, reduce her taxes, remain free of criminal undertakings, aspire without let or hindrence to making the most of herself without predjucing others, make others more equitable, minimise costs for others and go quietly on her way for the sake of her family.

We once lived in a country where such matters would not have come to light nor the political end game been more influenced by words such as "avoidance". Lest anyone forgets, nobody in this scheme avoided paying tax. We all work and we all pay tax.There are many who don't work, not because they can't, but because the State does not enforce them to do so. There are those who have multiple children at any age where they themselves have no skills to fend for themselves financially yet they receive funds, tax free without let or hindrence.

So, now that the hour has come, whatever the verdict on this story and I hope there are those in HMRC reading who have the conscience to understand this:

Nobody caught up in this ever took to hiding anything they gained financially
Every Return submitted stated clearly the grounds for tax relief
We all pay taxes
We all work
We all abide by the law as we know it to be and when there is doubt, we cast our reasons as so to be judged.
We are all familiies. We are not the enemy of the State
We support the economy
We expect our lives and property to be certain

By all means apply law and make it so from the time of Royal Assent. But to apply a law retrospectively suggests that the time when the law as it is now deemed was never applied during the period of retrospection. Wherever the fault lies in this misgiving, it is surely condemned to history to be learned from rather than added to history for future application.

One day, I may have to explain all of this to my daughter when no doubt she will ask "why?". And I will have to tell her "I just don't know". That will perhaps, be more distressing then, than the story unfolding now, yet the same answer applies. Retrospection applied Prospectivley. I doubt anyone considered that when planning BN66. I hope you sleep well on that.

[SantaClaus]

At some stage in life when our children are ready to face the world, we will have to explain that people exist who are vindictive, spiteful and have no morals or conscience.

Yep, MPs, Civil Servants and governments.