BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[rosbiff]

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.

Just been down but they wouldn't let me and a friend in with our phones :-(

[smalldog]

but, thats not what the JR is about at all is it. That was an argument for another day, for the legal challenge that never happened. Why isnt the judge just telling them to get back to the point?

yes exactly, this JR is nothing to do with if the scheme worked....This is about the legality of introducing retrospective legislation going back so far....Guess HMRC are trying to divert the judge so he forget what the whole thing is really all about...

[Slobbo]

Thought we'd already proved the scheme did work?

If the nobs are arguing that the courts shouldn't be meddling with the will of parliament it should be pointed out that parliament wouldn't have passed the law if it had been properly advised that the scheme did work. So arguing that it is the will of parliament is just arguing the same thing that has already proven to be incorrect.

[TheBarCapBoyz]

BarCapBoyz - you guys(?) are the best! HIstorically you have the most entertaining posts by far.

Actually laughed out loud. Really.

Why thank you sir.

There are - I think - four or five of us in the gang. The others don't bother posting. They just gob off down the pub. With the exception of Boycie - splitter - who was at the court yesterday with his stripey shirt.

As I recall Barclays Capital was always a hot bed of tax avoidance....

[nuffsaid]

but, thats not what the JR is about at all is it. That was an argument for another day, for the legal challenge that never happened. Why isnt the judge just telling them to get back to the point?

Well it kind of is.
The Judge won't agree to the ECHR if he thinks that BN66 is a clarifcation and the scheme never worked anyway. If he thought this there would be no case, the original wording caught us and retrospectiveness therefore doesn't apply.
If he feels that the scheme did work and BN66 is a modification, then it is a retrospective change and hello ECHR.

[johnnyguitar]

Although proving that the scheme worked under the old wording determines if BN66 is a 'clarification' or in fact a 'modification'.
If the scheme never worked then the retrospectiveness is a moot point.

The point our QC was making yesterday was - if the scheme never worked, why didn't they say 'how' it never worked for 7 years ? - then it is the issue of how unfair they have been but not telling us 'how' it never worked - they should have take cases to court/hearings and shut it down.
So, if it never worked, they are being unfair in not telling us.
The truth is, they didn't know how and therefore couldn't close it down.

Judge agrees that Padmore does not show how it never worked - so what does ?

[johnnyguitar]

Well it kind of is.
The Judge won't agree to the ECHR if he thinks that BN66 is a clarifcation and the scheme never worked anyway. If he thought this there would be no case, the original wording caught us and retrospectiveness therefore doesn't apply.
If he feels that the scheme did work and BN66 is a modification, then it is a retrospective change and hello ECHR.

Spot on !

[Emigre]

Firstly, great to meet up with so many of you over the last few days and so remarkably well behaved as well!

A potted summary of the case goes something like this:

Elvins is making the case for the judge to consider all the detail, particularly whether or not the scheme worked and secondly why HMRC failed to do anything for so long.

Singh's arguments are focused on the lines almost that there is no case to answer since Article 1 Protocol 1 specifically allows Governments to tax as they see fit, and does not specifically exclude retrospection. He introduced the OECD as overseer of all DTAs - quite an achievement when the IOM isn't even a signatory to it!

At one point yesetrday afternoon he argued that BN66 wasn't retrospective because HMRC had launched enquiries into our tax returns and they are thus still open!!! On that basis I guess we are all entitled to change our tax returns to any other scheme of our choosing - let me think, maybe there was no income...maybe all payments were loan drawdowns...

Quote of the day from the judge: "The Revenue had nothing to say and did nothing for a long time"

i left the Court at lunchtime today - they were going back in at 2.05 for about 1 hour for Elvins to counter any of Singhs arguments and to sum up.

[not-a-penny]

Heading for the court again, just can't stay away from it. I'm now popping in and out in between meetings.

Not that many people upstairs in the gallery today but still the court is packed. Singh must be the most boring QC ever, his delivery is monotonous which hits you like a high dose of valium. I'm amase that this judge hasn't fallen asleep yet. Our man Evelin is definitely livelier.

Lots of reporters and cameras outside RCJ. They are there for the ruling on the brothers who killed the thief that attacked them in their home.

[swede]

Why thank you sir.

There are - I think - four or five of us in the gang. The others don't bother posting. They just gob off down the pub. With the exception of Boycie - splitter - who was at the court yesterday with his stripey shirt.

As I recall Barclays Capital was always a hot bed of tax avoidance....

that was where I was first introduced to MTM. Happy Days.