BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Slobbo]

I hope to be there. Just need a firm date so I can arrange travel.

Do you think HMRC will let me away with travel expenses.

You know the scheme doesn't really pay out a hell of a lot more than going down the Ltd company route. I joined mostly for ease of accounting. I did the company thing for a few years and got fed up with the paperwork. Then of course IR35 came along and I didn't fancy paying the lions share of my income to the HMRC. Why should I be treated as an employee and an employer when it came with no job security, no company pension, no company perks and no expenses (5% wouldn't come close to paying for the travel I have to shell out for). I went looking for some other legal route and was introduced to the scheme. In a nutshell HMRC forced me into the arms of the scheme. Now they are trying to say it isn't legal.

[KiwiGuy]

I hope to be there. Just need a firm date so I can arrange travel.

Do you think HMRC will let me away with travel expenses.

You know the scheme doesn't really pay out a hell of a lot more than going down the Ltd company route. I joined mostly for ease of accounting. I did the company thing for a few years and got fed up with the paperwork. Then of course IR35 came along and I didn't fancy paying the lions share of my income to the HMRC. Why should I be treated as an employee and an employer when it came with no job security, no company pension, no company perks and no expenses (5% wouldn't come close to paying for the travel I have to shell out for). I went looking for some other legal route and was introduced to the scheme. In a nutshell HMRC forced me into the arms of the scheme. Now they are trying to say it isn't legal.

Yeah hear hear, i think noone would have joined the schemes if it wasnt for IR35. The ONLY reason was for me was because i was Audited for 2 1/2 years, they only dropped the case when i threatened to sue. After they dropped the case they turned around and said "we might come back to this later", i was spending £10K a year on advertising, building websites, the contracting side was paying for it, its a joke, So i stopped building a business, closed my company, who knows where i could have been now, if id been left to build my business. Ive never hated someone as much as i do for the HMRC crew. madtantrum:

[nuffsaid]

I hope to be there. Just need a firm date so I can arrange travel.

Do you think HMRC will let me away with travel expenses.

You know the scheme doesn't really pay out a hell of a lot more than going down the Ltd company route. I joined mostly for ease of accounting. I did the company thing for a few years and got fed up with the paperwork. Then of course IR35 came along and I didn't fancy paying the lions share of my income to the HMRC. Why should I be treated as an employee and an employer when it came with no job security, no company pension, no company perks and no expenses (5% wouldn't come close to paying for the travel I have to shell out for). I went looking for some other legal route and was introduced to the scheme. In a nutshell HMRC forced me into the arms of the scheme. Now they are trying to say it isn't legal.

Yup, same here. I was prepared to pay what they were asking pre-IR35, but they pushed it too high.
Drop IR35 and I'll be back on the LTD Co bandwagon.

Perhaps it's just my/our view of what's "fair and reasonable" is different to Gordy's, but I worked hard to get where I am now and since then this country has become more "unfair and unreasonble" than ever. So he can go fek himself.

[SantaClaus]

The problem is New Liebour dont want people to do well. They actively discourage entrepreneurship.

Then want to keep the "peasants" at average salary level or on benefits while they stick their snouts in the expenses trough and pander to powerful big business.

I too went with the scheme because I didnt believe IR35 was fair and I didnt see why I should subsidise an incompetent government, especially a govt. who were actively conspiring with the big consutancies to outsource my industry.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Your input

If anyone has any particular points/arguments that they think Counsel should be aware of, please drop me an email.

[email protected]

I have already provided our legal team with a dossier and various evidence but there is always the possibility I may have overlooked something.

As the case is primarily against HMRC, the main focus will be on their handling of the investigation into the scheme, rather than the lies/spin perpetrated by Jane Kennedy and the Treasury to get it through Parliament.

[smalldog]

so how do Jane and her buddies get taken to task, or dont they ever?!!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

so how do Jane and her buddies get taken to task, or dont they ever?!!

Step (1) is to win the case against HMRC.

Any human rights ruling handed down by the courts will automatically be picked up by the JCHR. The committee are expecting this to land on their desk again.

If we are still not satisfied, then the next port of call is the Parliamentary Ombudsman, who can look at cases of "maladministration causing injustice" and breaches of the Ministerial Code.

PS. It all comes down to the path of least resistance. It's much easier to prove a case against HMRC because the facts speak for themselves. It's more difficult to nail the Treasury because we're dealing with half-truths, ommissions and spin.

[helen7]

If anyone has any particular points/arguments that they think Counsel should be aware of, please drop me an email.
I have already provided our legal team with a dossier and various evidence but there is always the possibility I may have overlooked something.

• In early 2005 Labour did announce they would back date tax avoidance scehemes to December 2004. So why have they backdated this one 27 years?
  
• We were promised in all letters up until 2008 from HMRC that they would challenge our claims in court. They did not do this and instead just applied retrospective legislation. Why?
  
• Users of alternative tax avoidance schemes are not being treated in the same way with retrospective legislation. Why?
  
• How can interest be charge on any money due before legislation was changed? Surely the interest charges should only apply from 2008 onwards.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

• In early 2005 Labour did announce they would back date tax avoidance scehemes to December 2004. So why have they backdated this one 27 years?
  
• We were promised in all letters up until 2008 from HMRC that they would challenge our claims in court. They did not do this and instead just applied retrospective legislation. Why?
  
• Users of alternative tax avoidance schemes are not being treated in the same way with retrospective legislation. Why?
  
• How can interest be charge on any money due before legislation was changed? Surely the interest charges should only apply from 2008 onwards.

All good points.

Just to clarify, the "December 2004" announcement only applied to employment related schemes, and was largely aimed at city bonuses. This does not apply in our case.

The Government's justification for using retrospection in our case was that the 1987 legislation it clarifies was also a retrospective tax. However, there is one big difference between the 1987 legislation and section 58.

Stephen Timms' attempt to avoid answering this question should give you a clue as to why they are not comparable.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...tax#g297608.q0

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Directions Hearing

Looks like we're up tomorrow. (Huitson is us; Shiner is PwC).

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_admin.htm

COURT 63
Before MR JUSTICE SIMON
Tuesday 17 November, 2009
At half past 10

FOR MENTION
CO/11073/2008 The Queen on the application of Shiner v Commissioners Of Her Majestys Revenue And Customs

FOR MENTION
CO/10012/2008 The Queen on the application of Huitson v HM Revenue & Customs

PS. this is just a "pre-trial" hearing, not the actual JR