BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[DonkeyRhubarb]

This Forum

Is extremely valuable to Contractor UK in terms of web traffic. They have even approached me asking if I would write an article for them on the JR, and offering to include links to our own campaign website.

Unfortunately, even if enough of us lobby CUK I can't see them banning Jones unless he makes obscene or deflamatory remarks.

However, I have had an offer from Freelancesupermarket to set up a private forum for us.

If Alan Jones does not crawl back into his cave, I suggest we consider taking our business somewhere else.

[rosbiff]

Is extremely valuable to Contractor UK in terms of web traffic. They have even approached me asking if I would write an article for them on the JR, and offering to include links to our own campaign website.

Unfortunately, even if enough of us lobby CUK I can't see them banning Jones unless he makes obscene or deflamatory remarks.

However, I have had an offer from Freelancesupermarket to set up a private forum for us.

If Alan Jones does not crawl back into his cave, I suggest we consider taking our business somewhere else.

Alan who ? He must be on my ignore list

[nick4notax]

A brief history of time

I also remember a certain Mr Jones selling me the MTM scheme in the Heathrow Hilton on a wet evening back many, many years ago (2001 perhaps). He made great efforts to assure us (his large audience) that the scheme was fool-proof and HMRC would require a law change to close it AND that they couldn't come after you for past years in such an event. He kept harping on about this point, quoting both written and verbal QC approval. He flashed the written approval to us, his audience, inviting them to take a read but not a copy, etc, etc. To put that in perspective, written approval was a manual about an inch thick, if not bigger!!

He actively solicited new members for the scheme and kept giving his "personal" assurances, in his professional capacity as an HMRC trained tax expert, of the total legitimacy of the scheme and how it will always work UNTIL THE LAW IS CHANGED. The last time we spoke, I recall him inviting me to join a different scheme and not to join MTM although he offered no details on any technical differences but instead assured me it was exactly the same. I was left to conclude he simply wanted to own the scheme himself.

I am now a far better judge of character than I was back then. Luckily, I chose well and continue to appreciate the honestly and sincerity of MTM and their reliable advice and support throughout this mêlée. Isn't about time the HMRC and Mr Timms recognised that we are simply honest people who, having fully disclosed everything for years and years, seek nothing less than a fair outcome to this. The scheme is now dead, now please let this go!!

[normalbloke]

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.

hahah! Well said. This is getting better and better. Even armed with a barrister opinion on why the scheme didnt work, HMRC still did nothing.... I remember seeing the opinion on that website... and lets not forget its just an opinion, albeit from a Tax Counsel, but there are other eminent (becoming an over used word) Tax Counsels whose opinion is the opposite. I don't recall Milne's opinion including references to Padmore either... which is what HMRC are trying to use.

All this BS about MP not disclosing the Milne opinion.... it was on a public website and possibly AJ would have waved it at HMRC when he sold out the Suo Moto scheme to them. Is he asking us to believe HMRC were unaware of it?

Anyway, thats enough of my time wasted on him.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

All this BS about MP not disclosing the Milne opinion.... it was on a public website and possibly AJ would have waved it at HMRC when he sold out the Suo Moto scheme to them. Is he asking us to believe HMRC were unaware of it?

It is funny you should mention this because it was specifically referred to in the reasons AJ gave to his clients as to why he was settling with HMRC and that he had discussed the opinion with HMRC.

[smalldog]

I think its incredibly sad that this one man crusade to bring down MP is at the jeopardy of 2000 or so peoples livelihoods and futures. If only that energy could be channelled towards good in helping to protect families against financial hardship by helping us win this fight against HMRC....the lack of consideration and compassion for our plight is quite staggering....siding with the devil is not something I would personally do....

[SantaClaus]

Is extremely valuable to Contractor UK in terms of web traffic. They have even approached me asking if I would write an article for them on the JR, and offering to include links to our own campaign website.

Unfortunately, even if enough of us lobby CUK I can't see them banning Jones unless he makes obscene or deflamatory remarks.

However, I have had an offer from Freelancesupermarket to set up a private forum for us.

If Alan Jones does not crawl back into his cave, I suggest we consider taking our business somewhere else.

I agree DR. It must be clear to the moderators that Alan Jones posts are detrimental to this forum.

I wonder if Montpelier could even take out an injunction on him to stop him posting?

[bananarepublic]

Off topic

It seems that we are going off topic. This thread was set up to discuss BN66, in particular the retrospective aspect.

The purpose of the JR is to restore our right to due process NOT to ascertain whether the scheme worked or not.

All we want is our right to have this question examined restored to us.

[ASB]

Unfortunately, even if enough of us lobby CUK I can't see them banning Jones unless he makes obscene or deflamatory remarks.

Personally I wouldn't like to see him banned. He is entitled to his opinion - however unpalatable it may be. However it is to a large extent irrelevant, based on his apparently ongoing dispute with MTM.

It doesn't, in my view, add anything to this debate and is just a bit of a smokescreen. It is also hardly objective.

The first judgement he posted does make for interesting reading. It is, I think, worth reading the first one in full. It does give an insight into how the scheme came about and grew (though whether it worked or not wasn't in any way tested or indeed relevant in that trial). MTM certainly didn't get it all their own way at that trial, however it does need a lot of cherry picking in order to suggest that Mr Jones was in any way vindicated.

[Squicker]

If they could, they would.

LOL! I don't doubt that!