BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Emigre]

Alan Jones

Alan Jones again spent time this morning passing notes to the HMRC solicitor. there would be no point doing this for any reason that does not involve our case and he could not be doing it for any reason that could help us.

Hence we can only assume that he was doing it for his own benefit by helping HMRC.

In DR's words "the man needs flaming". So get on with it, do your best.

[nuffsaid]

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

Quality!

[travellingknob]

There is a simple answer. Introduce a new tax of 40% on everyones income for the last 10 years, regardless of where or how that income arises, say its governments will and the commoners should have known it was coming. Use that windfall to pay off the governments massive deficit and re-balance the total UK debts versus GDP so GB can get re-elected and help Britain step back 10 years to once again hold its head high. We will of course all vote for him. It will continue to hurt the publics purse if they dont do this !

[johnnyguitar]

Alan Jones again spent time this morning passing notes to the HMRC solicitor. there would be no point doing this for any reason that does not involve our case and he could not be doing it for any reason that could help us.

Hence we can only assume that he was doing it for his own benefit by helping HMRC.

In DR's words "the man needs flaming". So get on with it, do your best.

Seemed very suspicious yesterday. Is the guy using our case, involving hundreds of individuals and their families, to further his own position in life and weasel out of his own situation ?
Nice man.

Anyway, i reckon he's probably helping us (inadvertently) as their arguments seem more disjointed and irrelevant as the hearing goes on.

[travellingknob]

Now as for interest on retrospective tax.... if the conclusion is that Padmore doesn't apply and the scheme was legal then the retrospective tax levy didn't become due until April 2008 when the retrospective element became law. Interest cannot then begin to acrue before April 2008. A small blessing if we loose ?

[smalldog]

Seemed very suspicious yesterday. Is the guy using our case, involving hundreds of individuals and their families, to further his own position in life and weasel out of his own situation ?
Nice man.

Anyway, i reckon he's probably helping us (inadvertently) as their arguments seem more disjointed and irrelevant as the hearing goes on.

Im glad I couldnt go in a way (chest infection dont think coughing the whole way thru would help proceedings), I'd probably have ended up being arrested for slapping a few people....yes primitive and barbaric I know but massively satisfying....

[SantaClaus]

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.

Thanks for the update Emigre.

[SantaClaus]

Seemed very suspicious yesterday. Is the guy using our case, involving hundreds of individuals and their families, to further his own position in life and weasel out of his own situation ?
Nice man.

Anyway, i reckon he's probably helping us (inadvertently) as their arguments seem more disjointed and irrelevant as the hearing goes on.

Maybe that's why Singh's case seemed so nonsensical to me.

[deckster]

Now as for interest on retrospective tax.... if the conclusion is that Padmore doesn't apply and the scheme was legal then the retrospective tax levy didn't become due until April 2008 when the retrospective element became law. Interest cannot then begin to acrue before April 2008. A small blessing if we loose ?

No. Either tax is due on the income, and therefore is due on the 31st Jan after the end of the relevant tax year, and therefore interest is charged from that date - or it isn't due at all. The date of the law that makes the tax due is not, so far as I know, relevant.

[doublebubble]

We could do with someone having a flash forward and letting us know the outcome. Its unbearable

I have over 100,000 reasons for us to win this case.