BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[johnnyguitar]

Although proving that the scheme worked under the old wording determines if BN66 is a 'clarification' or in fact a 'modification'.
If the scheme never worked then the retrospectiveness is a moot point.

The point our QC was making yesterday was - if the scheme never worked, why didn't they say 'how' it never worked for 7 years ? - then it is the issue of how unfair they have been but not telling us 'how' it never worked - they should have take cases to court/hearings and shut it down.
So, if it never worked, they are being unfair in not telling us.
The truth is, they didn't know how and therefore couldn't close it down.

Judge agrees that Padmore does not show how it never worked - so what does ?

[nuffsaid]

but, thats not what the JR is about at all is it. That was an argument for another day, for the legal challenge that never happened. Why isnt the judge just telling them to get back to the point?

Well it kind of is.
The Judge won't agree to the ECHR if he thinks that BN66 is a clarifcation and the scheme never worked anyway. If he thought this there would be no case, the original wording caught us and retrospectiveness therefore doesn't apply.
If he feels that the scheme did work and BN66 is a modification, then it is a retrospective change and hello ECHR.

[TheBarCapBoyz]

BarCapBoyz - you guys(?) are the best! HIstorically you have the most entertaining posts by far.

Actually laughed out loud. Really.

Why thank you sir.

There are - I think - four or five of us in the gang. The others don't bother posting. They just gob off down the pub. With the exception of Boycie - splitter - who was at the court yesterday with his stripey shirt.

As I recall Barclays Capital was always a hot bed of tax avoidance....

[Slobbo]

Thought we'd already proved the scheme did work?

If the nobs are arguing that the courts shouldn't be meddling with the will of parliament it should be pointed out that parliament wouldn't have passed the law if it had been properly advised that the scheme did work. So arguing that it is the will of parliament is just arguing the same thing that has already proven to be incorrect.

[smalldog]

but, thats not what the JR is about at all is it. That was an argument for another day, for the legal challenge that never happened. Why isnt the judge just telling them to get back to the point?

yes exactly, this JR is nothing to do with if the scheme worked....This is about the legality of introducing retrospective legislation going back so far....Guess HMRC are trying to divert the judge so he forget what the whole thing is really all about...

[rosbiff]

Re Phones, there are several inside sneakily punching on their PDAs. Just make sure you aren't seen and it doesn't go off! Also, no coughing or breaking wind - the woman on the stenograph may have difficulty keying that onto the transcipt.

Just been down but they wouldn't let me and a friend in with our phones :-(

[SantaClaus]

Maybe the fact that the judge might be taken in by HMRC's arguments, weak as they may be.

They essentially seem to be saying, these are a bunch of tax-dodgers and we want their money, and you can't stand in our way, because we are parliment! Because its only 'fair'

I love the way how they always bring nurses into the "fairness" argument, even though millions are being wasted on management consultants for the NHS.

Funny that the case before ours yesterday was a midwife appealing against suspension for forging a doctor's note. The Judge found the case against her.

[portseven]

This really is going better than I could have possibly hoped. So why am I still nervous

Maybe the fact that the judge might be taken in by HMRC's arguments, weak as they may be.

They essentially seem to be saying, these are a bunch of tax-dodgers and we want their money, and you can't stand in our way, because we are parliment! Because its only 'fair'

[poppy01]

Although proving that the scheme worked under the old wording determines if BN66 is a 'clarification' or in fact a 'modification'.
If the scheme never worked then the retrospectiveness is a moot point.

but, thats not what the JR is about at all is it. That was an argument for another day, for the legal challenge that never happened. Why isnt the judge just telling them to get back to the point?

[nuffsaid]

yes thats what I thought too, if they are now starting to discuss if the scheme works is that actually the point here??? I thought it wasnt....this is about retro legislation..

Although proving that the scheme worked under the old wording determines if BN66 is a 'clarification' or in fact a 'modification'.
If the scheme never worked then the retrospectiveness is a moot point.