BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Quiz

Question 2

HMRC was approached by Suo Motu in late 2002, and a settlement was concluded in March 2003.

What reason did HMRC give for waiting 5 years to legislate?

a) The scheme wasn’t growing much so it didn’t need to be closed.
b) It took them several years to work out how the scheme operated.
c) The tax at risk in the early years was insignificant.
d) Their hands were tied until the potential tax loss had reached £200M.
e) Most users accepted their view that the scheme didn’t work.

[seadog]

Can I phone a friend?

No need to phone a friend Santa, the answer is provided by HMRC themselves.

They originally used the Ramsey & Archer Shee argument that the scheme did not work and it was only in autumn of 2007 that they decided that they did not have a good case to take the 4 test cases to the commissioners that they came up with the alternative argument that it did not work because of the Padmore case where they claim partners included trustees.

It strikes me that this is at the heart of the JR. How can they say for 6 years the reason it does not work is "X" and then say they have brought in retrospective legislation to claify that the scheme did not work because of a different argument "Y" and in parlaiment say they they have always told tax planners etc that it did not work.

To my mind a clear breach of human rights.

Perhaps Alan Jones from Suo Motu could enlighten us as to what grounds he said that HMRC used to close down his scheme, because it certainly was not teh Padmore principle

[Emigre]

Question 2

HMRC was approached by Suo Motu in late 2002, and a settlement was concluded in March 2003.

What reason did HMRC give for waiting 5 years to legislate?

a) The scheme wasn’t growing much so it didn’t need to be closed.
b) It took them several years to work out how the scheme operated.
c) The tax at risk in the early years was insignificant.
d) Their hands were tied until the potential tax loss had reached £200M.
e) Most users accepted their view that the scheme didn’t work.

None of the above? They didn't decide to legislate until late 2007 and in the event only did so in 2008. Their intention until that time was to litigate against 4 test cases. As I understand it HMRC have not even formally closed their intention to litigate.

Actually, can I change my answer please? "They don't know their own tax law"

[DonkeyRhubarb]

None of the above?

They have given one of these as a reason. You'll have to guess which you think is the most plausible.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Quiz

Question 3

Which one of the following statements is true about the 1987 legislation?

a) People received back-dated tax demands
b) Some people were made bankrupt by it
c) Some families lost their homes as a result of it
d) Pre-existing claims for double tax relief were accepted
e) It was challenged on human rights grounds

[ROBIN REDBREAST]

All of the above...??!

Question 3

Which of the following statements is true about the 1987 legislation?

a) People received back-dated tax demands
b) Some people were made bankrupt by it
c) Some families lost their homes as a result of it
d) Pre-existing claims for double tax relief were accepted
e) It was challenged on human rights grounds

[DonkeyRhubarb]

JR - court room capacity

The court has kindly agreed to allocate one of the larger court rooms to our case.

So if you were worried you might not get a seat, this should no longer be a concern.

Anyone who wants to attend should definitely go.

Let's give the Judge a decent audience!!!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

All of the above...??!

Sorry, I should have said which one of the following.

Only one of these statements is true.

[bollox]

Question 3

Which one of the following statements is true about the 1987 legislation?

a) People received back-dated tax demands
b) Some people were made bankrupt by it
c) Some families lost their homes as a result of it
d) Pre-existing claims for double tax relief were accepted
e) It was challenged on human rights grounds

<blockbuster stylee>can i have a "d" please - bharb</blockbuster stylee>

[smalldog]

The court has kindly agreed to allocate one of the larger court rooms to our case.

So if you were worried you might not get a seat, this should no longer be a concern.

Anyone who wants to attend should definitely go.

Let's give the Judge a decent audience!!!

I'll be there, be funny to get T shirts made up with your piccie on them DR!!!!