BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[johnnyguitar]

I'm so glad I managed to make on eof the sessions - I definitely understand the arguments and history a lot better now.
It has had the effect of making me hit the F5 button on here a lot more though ! The morning in court was definitely more nerve-wracking than I was expecting.
Meanwhile, the wife seems very 'what will be, will be' about it ! Admittedly, I'll 'only' be looking at a remortgage (If I can get one) and loss of all savings if it all goes pear-shaped but I'm not sure if I can be as relaxed as her.

I was wondering if there were any statements made in court as to the devastating effect this ruling would have on people? i.e. bankruptcy, broken homes etc - wouldn't that be taken into consideration ?

[Alan Jones]

U r either blind 2 truth or .................

Hi everyone,

Well I am back home in the North of England having attended both days and heard the submissions from start to finish, including the amatuerish ans embaraasing application for discovery of documents by Alan Jones.
(More of this later.)

Its been an interesting two days and both sides have made very profesional submissions to the Judge who showed an equally professional approach to the case and who demonstratd that he fully understood the points and issues raised by both parties.

It is clearly a landmark case with serious consequencies for all concerned, for HMRC if they lose the JR on retrospective legislation which will hamper future chances of doing the same again, Montpelier who will face a significant financial loss if the decision goes against them and more importantly for all the users of the scheme who will suffer because HMRC dragged their feet for seven long years before they took anay decisive action.

Donkey Rhubarb and I shared a hotel room on Tuesday and along with Emigree and Santa Claus went out for a meal after the first day to consider our position.

There is a great deal more to be said about the past two days after we have given it due consideration but bear in in mind the HMRC watchers and the unwanted interference from Alan Jones, perhaps we will find another way of disemenating our thoughts when we have had time over the weekend to put together a more comprehensive review of the proceedings.

Returning to Alan Jones for a moment, Alan had his moment of glory when he tried to hijack Montpelier and their QC but clearly his tactic backfired and whilst he will be entitled to some of the documents he wants I dont think he realises just how amateurish and unprofessional he appeared when he to the stand.

Let us remember his sole aim is to help himslef in his appeal against Montpelier in his appeal whcih coems to trial in the Isle of Man in March this year. He has no interest in helping us.

In reality if we win he has some unpalatable questions to answer to all those he persuaed to settle. Perhaps a serious claim fro compenstaion from them.

Alan raises numerous questions to try and cast doubt on the ability of Elvin (MontPs QC) and to try and suggest they could have done better.

Let me reassure you that Elvin was excellent, I have no qualms that he presented our case very throroghly and professionally, I have every confidence that he covered all the angles.

Sorry Alan you are just not in the same league, not even in the same field to make any sort of subjective comment on his ability.

In his recent blog tonight Alan mentions that the Milne QC opinion states that the scheme did not work. I think I am right in saying that their were two other opinions from the same QC when he stated that it did work.

These were done for Alan Jones and the Suo Motu scheme but cannot be produced in our case because they are priviliged to Alan Jones.

Alan, in a spirit of openess and transparency and with repect for the truth you might be willing to confirm the existence of those opinions and let us have copies.

Finally everyone, let us be pleased the we have had our fair day in court and it is now up to the Judge to make his decision.

One day soon it will become clear that you have been misled by someone and its not me. For example Elvin QC (based on evidence from his witness) said/suggested that Montpelier were NOT aware of the Milne 2001 opinions.

Copies were sent to Montpelier via my Solictors in early 2003. I will produce the letter on this site if anyone can "open their eyes" wide enough.
Did Montpelier had a duty to inform contractors about a dissenting opinion from an emminent tax barrister??

Full copies of the "dissenting" Milne opinion were posted on ir35amnesty.com at the same time [early 2003] - thus putting the opinions in the Public Domain . Montpelier new about this because they took me to court in an attempt to "shut me up" but failed.

Whoever lifted the 500 limit should hold up their hands and consider repaying fees. it was not me because when i left in May 2001 not a single person had completed the joining process.

Finally - talk about the pot calling the kettle black when you are all hiding behind donkeys and rhubarb.

[weeboaby]

One day soon it will become clear that you have been misled by someone and its not me. For example Elvin QC (based on evidence from his witness) said/suggested that Montpelier were NOT aware of the Milne 2001 opinions.

Copies were sent to Montpelier via my Solictors in early 2003. I will produce the letter on this site if anyone can "open their eyes" wide enough.
Did Montpelier had a duty to inform contractors about a dissenting opinion from an emminent tax barrister??

Full copies of the "dissenting" Milne opinion were posted on ir35amnesty.com at the same time [early 2003] - thus putting the opinions in the Public Domain . Montpelier new about this because they took me to court in an attempt to "shut me up" but failed.

Whoever lifted the 500 limit should hold up their hands and consider repaying fees. it was not me because when i left in May 2001 not a single person had completed the joining process.

Finally - talk about the pot calling the kettle black when you are all hiding behind donkeys and rhubarb.

Sorry, dude. I don't know what your beef is with MTM and people like me who are going to be destroyed by HMRC over this if things turn out badly. But I just cannot take anybody seriously who puts a post title in textspeak, and then can't spell "eminent".

[Alan Jones]

Stupid says stupid does

One has to ask, were any of the points listed by Jones brought up in the preceedings by Singh?

If not, they do not form part of the case and he is just scaremongering in only the way a twisted mind can.

You miss the point.

Singh could NOT comment on the points because he was NOT aware of them.

ASk the Q - Why was he "not aware"

Suggested Answer - maybe because the Huitson team had not made a full disclosure to the Court.

Check the law . This is the best ground of appeal for any case

[Alan Jones]

milne qc never said partnership scheme worked

In his recent blog tonight Alan mentions that the Milne QC opinion states that the scheme did not work. I think I am right in saying that their were two other opinions from the same QC when he stated that it did work.

These were done for Alan Jones and the Suo Motu scheme but cannot be produced in our case because they are priviliged to Alan Jones.

Alan, in a spirit of openess and transparency and with repect for the truth you might be willing to confirm the existence of those opinions and let us have copies.

Milne QC never ever said the partnership scheme worked.

He did give an opinion on a scheme that DID work but that was in May 2000 -9 months before i met Gittins AND it was NOT the partnership scheme.

[OnYourBikeGB]

One day soon it will become clear that you have been misled by someone and its not me. For example Elvin QC (based on evidence from his witness) said/suggested that Montpelier were NOT aware of the Milne 2001 opinions.

Copies were sent to Montpelier via my Solictors in early 2003. I will produce the letter on this site if anyone can "open their eyes" wide enough.
Did Montpelier had a duty to inform contractors about a dissenting opinion from an emminent tax barrister??

Full copies of the "dissenting" Milne opinion were posted on ir35amnesty.com at the same time [early 2003] - thus putting the opinions in the Public Domain . Montpelier new about this because they took me to court in an attempt to "shut me up" but failed.

Whoever lifted the 500 limit should hold up their hands and consider repaying fees. it was not me because when i left in May 2001 not a single person had completed the joining process.

Finally - talk about the pot calling the kettle black when you are all hiding behind donkeys and rhubarb.

This is getting tiresome, and this is the last time I'm going to bother, but like you say, the opinion was indeed on your website, I remember seeing it. But, here's a point, so must Hector. So, lets think about that. This top 5 barrister produces the opinion. So the whole workings of the scheme were laid open even before the technical exchange between MTM and HMRC. So they had even longer to do something, and they even had guidance on how. And they still did nothing. Maybe they weren't as confident as you. Then again, I remember you waving the original opinion around, how it never left your side you said. You used it to sell the scheme, because it was produced by the finest tax barristers.

That's it, I'm done listening to you.

[smalldog]

Alan, is it not irrelevant if the scheme did or didn't work at this juncture?

I also remember you waving it around when I flew out to IOM and met you. It was the reason I joined the scheme in the first place..I dont see how you can say nobody had joined by May 2001, I certainly had..

[SantaClaus]

You miss the point.

Singh could NOT comment on the points because he was NOT aware of them.

ASk the Q - Why was he "not aware"

Suggested Answer - maybe because the Huitson team had not made a full disclosure to the Court.

Check the law . This is the best ground of appeal for any case

yawwwnnnn!

[Squicker]

Alan, is it not irrelevant if the scheme did or didn't work at this juncture?

I also remember you waving it around when I flew out to IOM and met you. It was the reason I joined the scheme in the first place..

I am unaware of the beef this Jones character appears to have with MTM, although I have gleaned a bit from the posts here. I certainly don't think less of him through his having bi-polar disorder, one of my friends suffers from this and she is an eminent medical practitioner, as well as an admired and intelligent artist. It is a manageable, although incurable, illness.

However, I certainly take whatever Jones says with a pinch of salt because he DOES come across as a bitter person with an axe to grind. Even if there is some truth in what he says, it is not noticed, not because I am blind, but because there genuinely does appear to be an ulterior motive there.

I have come to this conclusion from reading the forum over the past few days and with no prior knowledge of the man.

WRT the matter in hand, it is only money. I was born with none and I'll certainly be laid in my coffin with none. Actually, I intend to be cremated, but still... However, I have my friends and family, none of whom would think less of me if I lost my wealth, and who would all look out for me and put a roof over my head, I know that for sure.

HMRC can't take that from me.

And I am sure it is the same for most of us here.

[ChimpMaster]

<snip>

However, I have my friends and family, none of whom would think less of me if I lost my wealth, and who would all look out for me and put a roof over my head, I know that for sure.

HMRC can't take that from me.

</snip>

If they could, they would.