BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Boycie]

How did the Judge appear to be responding to all this?

He just said "yes", occasionally. Was really difficult to read him. Some of their arguments did seem quite incredible. You wonder if we live in a democracy when you hear the HMRC guy saying that it's not up to the courts but parliament - parliament can do what it like anyway!

Re Phones, there are several inside sneakily punching on their PDAs. Just make sure you aren't seen and it doesn't go off! Also, no coughing or breaking wind - the woman on the stenograph may have difficulty keying that onto the transcipt.

[johnnyguitar]

Went along for another hour - managed to get in the upper gallery (I was in the middle with the stripey shirt) HMRC's guy was presenting. The four suits from the Revenue were busily looking through their tax manuals on the second row. I'll let others post the update but the main arguments seemed to be related to OECD's comments on DTA's and that they were not intended for an individual to avoid paying tax altogether and the other arguement seemed to be something along the lines of "it's up to parliament, not the courts". I'll let someone who was listening with more legal prowess provide a proper update.

Well - they can discuss that all they want when they want to change the law. And we're happy for them to make changes, prospectively.But that is not the debate here - and I hope that is pointed out by our QC.

The whole point is:
They say the scheme failed all along because of the original Padmore ruling (the judge seems to disagree) (and they didn't even believe it themselves for 7-8 years)

so they have to come up with a new reason for applying the tax. They need to pick one, then apply it, prospectively.
By all means, make the tax 'fair' and 'proportionate'
but also, make it clear and concise and stop treating everyone like criminals.

[SantaClaus]

He just said "yes", occasionally. Was really difficult to read him. Some of their arguments did seem quite incredible. You wonder if we live in a democracy when you hear the HMRC guy saying that it's not up to the courts but parliament - parliament can do what it like anyway!

Re Phones, there are several inside sneakily punching on their PDAs. Just make sure you aren't seen and it doesn't go off! Also, no coughing or breaking wind - the woman on the stenograph may have difficulty keying that onto the transcipt.

Yep, upper gallery quite handy for PDAs with keyboard in silent mode

[deckster]

...
The HMRC counsel continued this morning in very much the
same way as yesterday. He is driving the point about it's not so
much what the law says as what Parliament intended.

He also pointed out that in avoiding tax, the missing burden
is passed on to ordinary people who work 'say in the NHS', who
pay 'normal' levels of tax.

He then went on to cover the technical details of why the scheme
didn't work anyway. The majority of this was based around
the opinion that Milne gave to the SM lot. (section 739 concerning
transfer of assets, I'm sure someone will look that up for us!)
...
In a nutshell he is going for the 'social policy' angle and paying 'fair'
amounts of tax.

I don't understand, what is the point of this? Whether or not the scheme worked is not for this court to say, and therefore immaterial. Whether we have paid less tax than other people is immaterial. What parliament 'meant' to say is immaterial.

This case is about whether our human rights have been infringed by HMRC retrospectively changing the law to make what was not taxable, taxable - and thereby making a lot of otherwise net contributers to society bankrupt.

What have I missed?

[nuffsaid]

Good point

BTW the HMRC counsel used this thread in his evidence so be carefull what you post!

Thought it worth highlighting the above from PlaneSailing. We don't want to give them any ammo.

[SantaClaus]

Thought it worth highlighting the above from PlaneSailing. We don't want to give them any ammo.

I dont think we can. Anything we know is already in the public domain.
But, better safe than sorry.

[TAF4]

Incidentally, the Judge pressed the HMRC QC yesterday asking if they were inferring that the Montpelier business model was a 'Sham'. It was agreed that it wasn't a Sham and was a genuine business arrangement.

The use of the DTA within that arrangement generated an unintended consequence of exempting the individual from tax on a large part of the profits generated (unintended from a DTA perspective - that is).

Now, whilst that was obviously unpalatable to Hector, he had been fully aware of the technical arrangements and the consequences since 2001. It was also transparently made available to Hector in Huitson's SA of 2002.
The ongoing enquiries for 7 years were based on Hector being aware of the legitimate tax avoidance consequence but having no way of closing it down. That was the law at the time.

[TheBarCapBoyz]

Thought it worth highlighting the above from PlaneSailing. We don't want to give them any ammo.

You can use this in your "evidence"

I, and all my friends, are clueless idiots....

[robinhood]

He also pointed out that in avoiding tax, the missing burden
is passed on to ordinary people who work 'say in the NHS', who
pay 'normal' levels of tax.

I thought that legitimate tax planning was still legal

[SantaClaus]

Incidentally, the Judge pressed the HMRC QC yesterday asking if they were inferring that the Montpelier business model was a 'Sham'. It was agreed that it wasn't a Sham and was a genuine business arrangement.

The use of the DTA within that arrangement generated an unintended consequence of exempting the individual from tax on a large part of the profits generated (unintended from a DTA perspective - that is).

Now, whilst that was obviously unpalatable to Hector, he had been fully aware of the technical arrangements and the consequences since 2001. It was also transparently made available to Hector in Huitson's SA of 2002.
The ongoing enquiries for 7 years were based on Hector being aware of the legitimate tax avoidance consequence but having no way of closing it down. That was the law at the time.

So if the DTA isn't a sham, I can't see how the OECD's arguments on DTA's can be admissible.

Unless the OECD is a higher authority?