BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

Alternatively the government may go all the way to the European Court itself of course, which would likely take another two or three years. And as i think you don't get your costs back from there even if you win(mey be wrong here) Montpelier may just quit.

You do get costs awarded byEuropean Court of Human Rights:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8453878.stm

[northernSoul]

"Why were you helping MRC today and yesterday?

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

I suspect he isn't. I suspect he's got it in for Montpelier because he's already lost and is on their case... the best that can happen for Montpelier clients is that if they lose, they lose badly. Then they can sue Montpelier.

[deckster]

If HMRC win and i hope they do NOT (BUT based fairly on all the facts).Then i am NOT to blame.

(my emphasis)

See, you come across as very knowledgable and I have no reason to doubt your accounting credentials. But everything you say is, in my opinion, tainted by your past actions and in particular by your history with Montpelier. So you will forgive me if I don't quite believe the part of your post that I have emphasised, and I too wonder what exactly your motives are for posting here.

[seventieskid]

I've been quietly observing for some time. Thanks to all for their write ups and opinons on the JR and the level of effort people put into the forum over last last couple of years.

Keep up the good work.

[Alan Jones]

Favourite Quote from JR

Mr Singh raised the dissenting Milne QC opinion.

Judge interrupted and said - as best as i can remember . " i know Mr Milne well and he has never lost a case before [he may have said against] me."

Milne QC top five tax barristers in Country

Argles - !!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS reason for messages - i was passing messages with HMRC Tax Inspectors - it was technical banter . Because quite frankly neither Singh or Elvin (apologies for calling him Elgin) were good at tax and were getting "knickers in twist" .

[Cosmo]

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.

If Huitson wins . In my humble opinion, HMRC will definitely appeal on grounds of insufficient disclosure or sic. If you want to understand this point . You need to read ( www.judgments.im ) the Judgment no. J983 of Montpelier v Jones and Morris in September 2009 in full and look for refs to
(a) Whether HMRC Handbook para 1660 brought the IR35 scheme into the public domain. You will note that Montpelier in this case argue the exact opposite to what was said by Elgin in the Huitson case. I say you can't have cake and eat it.
(b) Check what judge says about the Managing Partner who had the discretion to pay all the profits to one partner and nothing to the other pasrtners. This may put some doubt on whether the partnership was in fact a partnership. may fail the test put forward by Elgin QC RE Manek.
(c) Pre-ordained transaction per Ramsay - did not feature in the September 2009 judgement because montpelier dropped their argument that the contractors were entering into collateral contracts which gave HMRC a good reason to challenge under Ramsay/Furness. But they did not withdraw the evidence that contractors, having paid their £1000 were contractually bound to complete the structure. This smack of pre-ordained & Ramsay.
(d) Montpelier were fully aware that Milne QC thought the scheme did NOT work as early as january 2003. I recall Elgin QC said in summing up that Montpelier were not aware of Milne QC opinion.
(e) i suggest you undertake a poll of contractors to find out how many remember that the scheme was to be limited to 500 to keep below the HMRC (change the law ) radar. If HMRC win and i hope they do NOT (BUT based fairly on all the facts).Then i am NOT to blame.

Finally - just check out the Judgment in J370 Jones v Montpelier - this was before the highest court in the IOM who said that someone had "maybe - misled" the court. . This is why i lost my temper in Court because i have also been looking down a barrell for 9 years.

AND Really finally - who recalls the HMRC saying that the first scheme on their Radar was Montpelier and NOT Suo Motu. Dont worry about the aplogies because i am very thick skinned.

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.

[helen7]

As we all suspected, HMRC have been monitoring this blog and tried to substantiate their case from 4 or 5 posts on here. Elvin also countered this

How can this forum be used in a court....HMRC could have set up an account and posted anything they wanted on her. Jones had at least 2 active posting account on the forum and was obviously looking for stuff to go against us. What would be to stop him planting what he thinks the court wants to hear.

[Alan Jones]

Overview of the JR

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.

If Huitson wins . In my humble opinion, HMRC will definitely appeal on grounds of insufficient disclosure or sic. If you want to understand this point . You need to read ( www.judgments.im ) the Judgment no. J983 of Montpelier v Jones and Morris in September 2009 in full and look for refs to
(a) Whether HMRC Handbook para 1660 brought the IR35 scheme into the public domain. You will note that Montpelier in this case argue the exact opposite to what was said by Elgin in the Huitson case. I say you can't have cake and eat it.
(b) Check what judge says about the Managing Partner who had the discretion to pay all the profits to one partner and nothing to the other pasrtners. This may put some doubt on whether the partnership was in fact a partnership. may fail the test put forward by Elgin QC RE Manek.
(c) Pre-ordained transaction per Ramsay - did not feature in the September 2009 judgement because montpelier dropped their argument that the contractors were entering into collateral contracts which gave HMRC a good reason to challenge under Ramsay/Furness. But they did not withdraw the evidence that contractors, having paid their £1000 were contractually bound to complete the structure. This smack of pre-ordained & Ramsay.
(d) Montpelier were fully aware that Milne QC thought the scheme did NOT work as early as january 2003. I recall Elgin QC said in summing up that Montpelier were not aware of Milne QC opinion.
(e) i suggest you undertake a poll of contractors to find out how many remember that the scheme was to be limited to 500 to keep below the HMRC (change the law ) radar. If HMRC win and i hope they do NOT (BUT based fairly on all the facts).Then i am NOT to blame.

Finally - just check out the Judgment in J370 Jones v Montpelier - this was before the highest court in the IOM who said that someone had "maybe - misled" the court. . This is why i lost my temper in Court because i have also been looking down a barrell for 9 years.

AND Really finally - who recalls the HMRC saying that the first scheme on their Radar was Montpelier and NOT Suo Motu. Dont worry about the aplogies because i am very thick skinned.

[loftedtag]

Day 2

[QUOTE=SantaClaus;1051021]

As we all suspected, HMRC have been monitoring this blog and tried to substantiate their case from 4 or 5 posts on here. Elvin also countered this.

The judgement will be several weeks away and we are led to believe whichever side loses will appeal.

--------------------

Thanks Santa and others for all the info on day 2 very useful and informative. I have some comments/points if anyone could comment.

1/ From the very basic law I know, I thought you could not appeal unless further evidence or facts come up, however I expect that's the case in criminal law. What new arguements can be brought forward when this is the best HMRC can do after 8 years. The thought of this dragging on for years concerns me.

2/ If HMRC are monitoring this forum and they use 4 or 5 posts against us, what about the other 1995 people who are suffering mental anguish and the threat of bankruptcy, surprise lets ignore those. Maybe some clever people did think they spotted something, but the way I had it explained to me was, this has been going in since 2001 and HMRC had not persued anyone on the scheme. In fact I submitted my forms to HMRC in 2004 and they never wrote to me until 2007 telling me they thought the scheme did not work, this was the response to my 2004/5 return! Why not do in it 2004 I might have not spent it all or even dropped out of the scheme!

It looks to be going well for us and it makes me laugh to think the HMRC guys have been in court on their i-phones surfing this forum, here's wishing you Hectors a poor night sleep tonight, because if the best they can come up with is the government has a God given right to create the laws they want and back date them to whenever they see fit, then you have not got a hope. I see that as an insult to the Judge by saying whatever you rule the government is more important.

Thanks again to those people posting on this forum it keeps me sane and the other half off my back, we can see progress.

[Lazylobster]

A massive thanks to those who attended and have given news updates.

So now we wait.

chin up chaps ! tally ho, bandits at 12. . . . .

LL