BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[WhiteCat]

Jr

Back at work again for the afternoon after a positive morning in court and I find myself wondering what persuasive arguments the HMRC barrister will find to counter the excellent points put forward by our man. I particularly enjoyed the paragraph by paragraph dismissal of much of the content in the two HMRC witness statements from McDougall and Davey presented to the court.

[loftedtag]

McDougall and Davey

Back at work again for the afternoon after a positive morning in court and I find myself wondering what persuasive arguments the HMRC barrister will find to counter the excellent points put forward by our man. I particularly enjoyed the paragraph by paragraph dismissal of much of the content in the two HMRC witness statements from McDougall and Davey presented to the court.

Sorry I must have missed this from previous posts who exactly are McDougall and Davey? HMRC employees?

Well done guys on all the updates, it's been interesting reading and very positive.

[nuffsaid]

Sorry I must have missed this from previous posts who exactly are McDougall and Davey? HMRC employees?

Both were senior guys at the HMRC.

[SantaClaus]

Another update.

The Revenues QC, Singh has been speaking.

Judge seems quite amiable to him in the same way as he was to Elvin.

The revenue's case appears to hinge on retrospection not being incompatible with the Human Rights Act and that the scheme was artificial.

Lots of Strasbourg cases quoted, the basic gist being Singh believes "fair balance" has been struck.

Sing mentioned tax avoidance was a loss to the staate and impacts on public services and the Judge reminded him about quantative easing, which was classic.

[smalldog]

Another update.

The Revenues QC, Singh has been speaking.

Judge seems quite amiable to him in the same way as he was to Elvin.

The revenue's case appears to hinge on retrospection not being incompatible with the Human Rights Act and that the scheme was artificial.

Lots of Strasbourg cases quoted, the basic gist being Singh believes "fair balance" has been struck.

Sing mentioned tax avoidance was a loss to the staate and impacts on public services and the Judge reminded him about quantative easing, which was classic.

if it was so artificial then why did they take so long to apply legislation, surely the judge can ask why in that case did they not just apply the current rules at the time or take it straight to the commissioners?? grrr makes me mad

[Slobbo]

Wonder if the Suo Motu arrangement has been bought up yet?

[johnnyguitar]

Wonder if the Suo Motu arrangement has been bought up yet?

It was brought up this morning - basically pointing out that HMRC had made a 'deal' with one scheme, who's users ended up paying some but not 'all' tax.

Elvin pointed out that it was bascially just some people 'rolling over' (judge used these words too) and that it had not relevance to proving that the scheme didn't work.

[Slobbo]

Really? I thought it had relevance because if the legislation was in force then why did the revenue feel the need to do the deal. Why not just bring down the full force of the law and make them pay up everything?

[Tuntun]

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate these updates guys.

Could someone tell me how many of us were actually in the viewing galleries this morning?
Thanks again.

[nuffsaid]

Elvin pointed out that it was bascially just some people 'rolling over' (judge used these words too) and that it had not relevance to proving that the scheme didn't work.

Also it was raised that there was no reason given by HMRC why Suo Motu wouldn't work, hence the 'rolling over' conclusion.