BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[SantaClaus]

I can't help posting one more line on Jones, and then I will ignore him...

If what Jones has stated in his previous post was so relevant to the case, why wasn't it scribbled on the notes he kept passing to the HMRC stooges and brought up by Singh???

Answers on the back of a postcard please.

[Fog]

Alan,


I don't know what was in the notes your passed to HMRC during the course of the hearing but I suspect they were not to the benefit of anyone here.

.

Bollox saw a few of them I think. I am sure he will update soon..... like I just said - he is worth ignoring.

[Toocan]

Simple observations -

Elgin QC could have done better on the tax - particularly when he "fluffed" the reason why Milne QC thought scheme did not work.

Alan,

Why are you even bothering with this? Have you been stalking Montpelier for eight years?

I don't know what was in the notes your passed to HMRC during the course of the hearing but I suspect they were not to the benefit of anyone here.

If HMRC win this then you will have had your part to play in that. There are around 3,000 people (and their families) involved in this. Where will your victory be then?

From what you've said on here, you have already been damaged by this enought. Let it go. There is nothing here for you.

[Fog]

Interesting afternoon

I made the afternoon today. I must say - quite fascinating - and nice to meet more people in the same situation.

Great work by Seadog and Santa for their write up.

My chin is still on the floor in relation to Mr Jones' court room special today and his audacity at responding in such a way on this site. Never felt the need to ignore someone so much in my life.

Going back to the point at hand - our case - I felt it was summed up very well by our chap. We still have a long way to go but a few of us did briefly speak to our legal team who seemed happy with the way things had gone and said so. Still - there is a lot to go through yet and even if we get a decision soon (our legal team seemed to think 3-4 weeks) there will likely be another round or two.

Fog

[northernSoul]

"The pair were awarded 33,850 euros (£30,400) to cover legal costs. "

You do get costs, but as I understood it, the principles of recovery are a bit mean. In particular the allowable hourly rates are at quite low ceilings (I use the word "low" in the legal sense) so if you pay a good lawyer, you'll almost certainly out of pocket even if you win. For instance, unless the two above in the article you quoted were using lawyers prepared to work for a low fee, (perhaps in order to make a name for themselves) I'd say £30,400 would almost certainly have left them out of pocket. Still - if you lose, you dont have to pay the governments expenses. Generally.

[SantaClaus]

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.

[Alan Jones]

Because i am in same position as you guys

Why were you helping HMRC today and yesterday?

Why are you still involved in all this, if it's all been so awful for you?

I don't understand but I think I and all the others posting on this thread wonder the same thing.

i aaddressed your HMRC Q b4 u posted - but my posts get vetted & therefore there is a delay for e.g. i am writing this at 7.30pm.

my position is exactly same as you expect my nemesis is not HMRC . I admire the never say die spirit because i will fight my cause to the bitter end.

However for me to win my appeal and save me going bankrupt, R u worried about making some poor inspector redundant or bankrupt. Answer is - if it saves yur skin NO . How many of you have had contracts designing HMRC systems - did you refuse the work on ***** . NO .

The only person fighting for me is me.

[futurecat]

Well said normalbloke!

1, Stop using this forum as a way to further your personal vendetta against MP.

2. Why are you clouding the legal issues in points b and c of your post? HMRC's attack on the scheme is via Padmore after the Archer v Baker Shee line failed. As far as I can make out from the info here, the Judge was far from impressed with the Padmore argument. Lets keep to the point here.

3. HMRC should have put up or shut up in the last 6 years. By just asking for payments on account shows they had no concrete way of refuting the scheme. You fail to mention that. And any views you have on retrospection.

4. Why pass notes to the HMRC stooges when you hope they will lose?

You were one of the main recruiters for the MP scheme. You assured people the scheme was legal. However, after you realised there was more money to be made on your own, you tried to woo the MP contractors to Suo Moto. Then you had a complete U turn and 'rolled over' to HMRC, saying you'd seen the light after another QC opinion. Then set up various other 'I'll save you' websites, spreading FUD to all. (oh and for a nice fee I assume).

I really don't know why I'm wasting my time responding to you, but you do have a knack of upsetting people, I'll give you that.

Lets stick to the point shall we from now on?

[normalbloke]

Dear Mr Jones

1, Stop using this forum as a way to further your personal vendetta against MP.

2. Why are you clouding the legal issues in points b and c of your post? HMRC's attack on the scheme is via Padmore after the Archer v Baker Shee line failed. As far as I can make out from the info here, the Judge was far from impressed with the Padmore argument. Lets keep to the point here.

3. HMRC should have put up or shut up in the last 6 years. By just asking for payments on account shows they had no concrete way of refuting the scheme. You fail to mention that. And any views you have on retrospection.

4. Why pass notes to the HMRC stooges when you hope they will lose?

You were one of the main recruiters for the MP scheme. You assured people the scheme was legal. However, after you realised there was more money to be made on your own, you tried to woo the MP contractors to Suo Moto. Then you had a complete U turn and 'rolled over' to HMRC, saying you'd seen the light after another QC opinion. Then set up various other 'I'll save you' websites, spreading FUD to all. (oh and for a nice fee I assume).

I really don't know why I'm wasting my time responding to you, but you do have a knack of upsetting people, I'll give you that.

Lets stick to the point shall we from now on?

[SantaClaus]

Simple observations -

Elgin QC could have done better on the tax - particularly when he "fluffed" the reason why Milne QC thought scheme did not work.

... blah blah blah

My first impression is that your are trying to put doubt in people's minds for your own twisted pleasure. Why should we believe anything you say after observing you handing notes to the Revenue after claiming you would help us?