BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The "immediate precedent value" is the reason HMRC are trying to make BN66/s.58 FA2008 work. This would be a very desireable tool for them.

Indeed. You only have to read other threads on this board to realise that HMRC must be sitting on tens of thousands of other scheme returns. In most cases, they don't even seem to be going through the motions of pursuing the enquiries. I wonder why? Are they perhaps waiting for the easy option?

With the dire state of the public finances, even a Conservative administration might be willing to grant them more retrospective legislation if the Courts allow s.58 to stand.

They're going to lose.

They must not be allowed to win that's for sure. It's not just our necks on the block.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

HMRC issued first closure notices in March 2006

I've only just discovered this, and I think it is highly significant.

HMRC took the first steps towards litigation in March 2006 by issuing Closure Notices to 4 users of the scheme they had selected as test cases. The arguments put forward, for why they believed the scheme did not work, made no mention of the 1987 legislation or the "Padmore" case which section 58 clarifies.

In April 2006, Montpelier appealed the Closure Notices.

In June 2006, HMRC wrote back to acknowledge the appeals, and to seek agreement that the cases should proceed to the Special Commissioners of HMRC.

The following year in April 2007, HMRC wrote again to confirm that the appeals were in the process of being listed for hearing before the Special Commissioners.

Despite Montpelier repeatedly chasing them for updates, this was the last that was heard from HMRC before the legislation was announced in Budget Note 66 on 12th March 2008.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

HMRC - The [un]likely lads!

I've only just discovered this, and I think it is highly significant.

HMRC took the first step towards litigation in March 2006, by issuing Closure Notices to a user of the scheme they had selected as a test case. The arguments put forward, for why they believed the scheme did not work, made no mention of the 1987 legislation or the "Padmore" case which section 58 clarifies.

In April 2006, Montpelier appealed the Closure Notices.

In June 2006, HMRC wrote back to acknowledge the appeals, and to seek agreement that the case should proceed to the Special Commissioners of HMRC.

The following year in April 2007, HMRC wrote again to confirm that the appeals were in the process of being listed for hearing before the Special Commissioners.

Despite being repeatedly chased for updates, this was the last that was heard from HMRC before the legislation was announced in Budget Note 66 on 12th March 2008.

DR,
One of the 3 grounds on which a JR can adjudicate is Procedural Impropriety. Hmmm, the above should fall squarely into that particular camp. Guess they didn't have the stomach to go to the SC after they took a good look at it. Priceless, they can't even clarify whether a test case is or is not going to the SC. Oh dear. Another hit and a miss on legitimate expectation courtesy of HMRC.

[Toocan]

...Guess they didn't have the stomach to go to the SC after they took a good look at it. ...

Have you noticed that the longer this case goes on the more HMRC's case unravels.....

Seems like there is a lot of 'egg' in the air.

[portseven]

Have you noticed that the longer this case goes on the more HMRC's case unravels.....

Seems like there is a lot of 'egg' in the air.

It's like watching the Laurel and Hardy show, what a bunch of bumbling fools. Come to think of it, our favorite MP does have a striking resemblance to Stan Laurel...

[OnYourBikeGB]

DR,
One of the 3 grounds on which a JR can adjudicate is Procedural Impropriety. Hmmm, the above should fall squarely into that particular camp. Guess they didn't have the stomach to go to the SC after they took a good look at it. Priceless, they can't even clarify whether a test case is or is not going to the SC. Oh dear. Another hit and a miss on legitimate expectation courtesy of HMRC.

I have no idea what Procedural Impropriety means, so by the power of the internet, so I had a look at

http://www.lawteacher.net/english-le...ial-review.php

Anyone else who is curious, I assume the bit we are talking about is the section on Natural Justice.

Is this just a means to get get a JR? As in, we're already past that bit, or does it hold any sway on the outcome of a JR? If it does, then surely this is an open and shut case as we were given no opportunity to make representations even though our individual interests were affected? 'Scuse the ignorance.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Avoid legal speak

I have no idea what Procedural Impropriety means, so by the power of the internet, so I had a look at

http://www.lawteacher.net/english-le...ial-review.php

Anyone else who is curious, I assume the bit we are talking about is the section on Natural Justice.

Is this just a means to get get a JR? As in, we're already past that bit, or does it hold any sway on the outcome of a JR? If it does, then surely this is an open and shut case as we were given no opportunity to make representations even though our individual interests were affected? 'Scuse the ignorance.

Without getting a whole thread going on legal-ese, Procedural Impropriety is one of the grounds on which a JR can rule. I don't know if this is what is being presented at the JR. However, procedural ultra vires and audi alteram partem both refer to how legislation is prepared. So in terms of BN66, did HMRC follow all necessary, fair and relevant steps, procedures and processes when considering retrospection? As this has been the main thrust of concern on this forum, this is nothing new but provides an insight into one of the ruling options of a JR. And no, we are not past any bit yet as only the JR itself can determine such status. Or put it another way, did HMRC deliberately attempt to stitch up a load of folks with retrospection? I think we know the answer to that one...

HTH.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Without getting a whole thread going on legal-ese, Procedural Impropriety is one of the grounds on which a JR can rule. I don't know if this is what is being presented at the JR. However, procedural ultra vires and audi alteram partem both refer to how legislation is prepared. So in terms of BN66, did HMRC follow all necessary, fair and relevant steps, procedures and processes when considering retrospection? As this has been the main thrust of concern on this forum, this is nothing new but provides an insight into one of the ruling options of a JR. And no, we are not past any bit yet as only the JR itself can determine such status. Or put it another way, did HMRC deliberately attempt to stitch up a load of folks with retrospection? I think we know the answer to that one...

HTH.

Then based on the natural justice bit, the revenue look 100% likely to lose as they gave us no prior notice, nor were we able to make representations. Think I'll book that holiday!

[PlaneSailing]

More FOI perhaps

I've only just discovered this, and I think it is highly significant.

HMRC took the first step towards litigation in March 2006, by issuing Closure Notices to a user of the scheme they had selected as a test case. The arguments put forward, for why they believed the scheme did not work, made no mention of the 1987 legislation or the "Padmore" case which section 58 clarifies.

In April 2006, Montpelier appealed the Closure Notices.

In June 2006, HMRC wrote back to acknowledge the appeals, and to seek agreement that the case should proceed to the Special Commissioners of HMRC.

The following year in April 2007, HMRC wrote again to confirm that the appeals were in the process of being listed for hearing before the Special Commissioners.

Despite being repeatedly chased for updates, this was the last that was heard from HMRC before the legislation was announced in Budget Note 66 on 12th March 2008.

I wonder when the case before the commisioners was stopped? If
it was before the 2008 Budget could we assume that the scheme worked?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Foi

I wonder when the case before the commisioners was stopped? If
it was before the 2008 Budget could we assume that the scheme worked?

Funny you should mention that.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques..._in_bn66_key_d