BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[OnYourBikeGB]

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.

I removed my cheap, sarcastic comment. I have no time for AJ, whatever he is up to now sets him directly opposed not only to us, but the safety and welfare of all our families and loved ones. That said, I don't want to stoop.

[travellingknob]

The date of the law that makes the tax due is not, so far as I know, relevant.

Just a side discussion i know, but surely the tax wasn't due on 31stJan each year because the law didn't exist. Assumes the scheme was legal but was captured by the retrospective clause only - which of course gives rise the the whole ECHR arguement we're having now.
If its decided that the response was fair and proportionate and retrospective is allowed, that still raises the question when did the tax become due ?

[nuffsaid]

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.

He handed the Suo Motu people over to Hector saying that the scheme didn't actually work... ooops.
He must feel a right tw*t now having heard the Judge say that the scheme did work! Although he's probably more bothered about the commission he lost out on.

[Cosmo]

He handed the Suo Motu people over to Hector saying that the scheme didn't actually work... ooops.
He must feel a right tw*t now having heard the Judge say that the scheme did work! Although he's probably more bothered about the commission he lost out on.

that people will finally realise he is a crazy person and wonder why the **** they listened to him?!

[TAF4]

He handed the Suo Motu people over to Hector saying that the scheme didn't actually work... ooops.

Despite Jones giving Hector all the technical details of the Business Model, and rolling over (shafting) his client base, Hector still couldn't come up with an argument that demonstrated the model was illegal. That's why they clutched at the Padmore straw.

It's poetic that the Padmore 'solution' to Hector's dilemma also didn't work.

What a bunch of wasters!

[srhcompcon]

He handed the Suo Motu people over to Hector saying that the scheme didn't actually work... ooops.
He must feel a right tw*t now having heard the Judge say that the scheme did work! Although he's probably more bothered about the commission he lost out on.

Is that what he actually said, i dont think so!

[stuffed]

Made most of the morning session.

Please correct me if my wording is a bit off:

A few other arguments Singh put together were:

Padmore in 87 was retrospective.
We should have expected within our tax planning that our situation could also have turned retrospective against us, and should have planned our affairs accordingly to allow this. Thus our argument of excessive hardship on retrospective legislation should have been in a way expected. Revenue implied they were going to challenge the scheme for quite a while.

They talked about the scheme resulting in a bandwagon effect, where initially it was not many people taking advantage of the scheme, and given the limited numbers involved, legislation / action was not taken by HMRC as one would expect. After the numbers swelled it was required to introduce the new rule and retrospective action to curb the growth in the scheme.

Argument that DTA is there to releive Double taxation but should be not used to avoid taxation.

Overall morning session seemed quite technical, quite a bit of case law being thrown out there.
As it was my first effort it was hard to gauge the judges feelings on it all.
I would have preferred him challenging or questioning more the statements made by HMRC. He just seemed to nod and make notes on most of the arguments put forward.

This afternoons rebuttal to HMRC's comments should be interesting.

[nuffsaid]

Is that what he actually said, i dont think so!

He didn't use the words "the scheme works", but did agree that it was not caught by Padmore (under the original wording); the only given reason as to why the scheme didn't work.

[normalbloke]

Made most of the morning session.

Please correct me if my wording is a bit off:

A few other arguments Singh put together were:

Padmore in 87 was retrospective.
We should have expected within our tax planning that our situation could also have turned retrospective against us, and should have planned our affairs accordingly to allow this. Thus our argument of excessive hardship on retrospective legislation should have been in a way expected. Revenue implied they were going to challenge the scheme for quite a while.

They talked about the scheme resulting in a bandwagon effect, where initially it was not many people taking advantage of the scheme, and given the limited numbers involved, legislation / action was not taken by HMRC as one would expect. After the numbers swelled it was required to introduce the new rule and retrospective action to curb the growth in the scheme.

Argument that DTA is there to releive Double taxation but should be not used to avoid taxation.

Overall morning session seemed quite technical, quite a bit of case law being thrown out there.
As it was my first effort it was hard to gauge the judges feelings on it all.
I would have preferred him challenging or questioning more the statements made by HMRC. He just seemed to nod and make notes on most of the arguments put forward.

This afternoons rebuttal to HMRC's comments should be interesting.

Someone should tell Singh that retrospective action doesn't curb growth... it affects the current and past users of the scheme and is a cheap, shabby and vindictive way of remedying the fact HMRC have ballsed up. Prospective action surely prevents new users... ie growth.

[PlaneSailing]

Update 2

Just come out of the afternoon session.

Our Counsel finished off his reply to Mr Singh. The highlight,
that got a big nod from the judge was one of my favourites:
'the taxpayer has the right to arrange his tax affairs in any way
that is legal'

He went on to reiterate a lot of his points from yesterday and
they seemed to be positively received by the judge.

There was an application that was dealt with at the end of the session.
Mr Jones requested a copy of the skeleton arguments.