BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Cosmo]

Simple observations -

Elgin QC could have done better on the tax - particularly when he "fluffed" the reason why Milne QC thought scheme did not work.

If Huitson wins . In my humble opinion, HMRC will definitely appeal on grounds of insufficient disclosure or sic. If you want to understand this point . You need to read ( www.judgments.im ) the Judgment no. J983 of Montpelier v Jones and Morris in September 2009 in full and look for refs to
(a) Whether HMRC Handbook para 1660 brought the IR35 scheme into the public domain. You will note that Montpelier in this case argue the exact opposite to what was said by Elgin in the Huitson case. I say you can't have cake and eat it.
(b) Check what judge says about the Managing Partner who had the discretion to pay all the profits to one partner and nothing to the other pasrtners. This may put some doubt on whether the partnership was in fact a partnership. may fail the test put forward by Elgin QC RE Manek.
(c) Pre-ordained transaction per Ramsay - did not feature in the September 2009 judgement because montpelier dropped their argument that the contractors were entering into collateral contracts which gave HMRC a good reason to challenge under Ramsay/Furness. But they did not withdraw the evidence that contractors, having paid their £1000 were contractually bound to complete the structure. This smack of pre-ordained & Ramsay.
(d) Montpelier were fully aware that Milne QC thought the scheme did NOT work as early as january 2003. I recall Elgin QC said in summing up that Montpelier were not aware of Milne QC opinion.
(e) i suggest you undertake a poll of contractors to find out how many remember that the scheme was to be limited to 500 to keep below the HMRC (change the law ) radar. If HMRC win and i hope they do NOT (BUT based fairly on all the facts).Then i am NOT to blame.

Finally - just check out the Judgment in J370 Jones v Montpelier - this was before the highest court in the IOM who said that someone had "maybe - misled" the court. . This is why i lost my temper in Court because i have also been looking down a barrell for 9 years.

AND Really finally - who recalls the HMRC saying that the first scheme on their Radar was Montpelier and NOT Suo Motu. Dont worry about the aplogies because i am very thick skinned.

Why were you helping HMRC today and yesterday?

Why are you still involved in all this, if it's all been so awful for you?

I don't understand but I think I and all the others posting on this thread wonder the same thing.

[Alan Jones]

Favourite Quote from JR

Mr Singh raised the dissenting Milne QC opinion.

Judge interrupted and said - as best as i can remember . " i know Mr Milne well and he has never lost a case before [he may have said against] me."

Milne QC top five tax barristers in Country

Argles - !!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS reason for messages - i was passing messages with HMRC Tax Inspectors - it was technical banter . Because quite frankly neither Singh or Elvin (apologies for calling him Elgin) were good at tax and were getting "knickers in twist" .

[seventieskid]

I've been quietly observing for some time. Thanks to all for their write ups and opinons on the JR and the level of effort people put into the forum over last last couple of years.

Keep up the good work.

[deckster]

If HMRC win and i hope they do NOT (BUT based fairly on all the facts).Then i am NOT to blame.

(my emphasis)

See, you come across as very knowledgable and I have no reason to doubt your accounting credentials. But everything you say is, in my opinion, tainted by your past actions and in particular by your history with Montpelier. So you will forgive me if I don't quite believe the part of your post that I have emphasised, and I too wonder what exactly your motives are for posting here.

[northernSoul]

"Why were you helping MRC today and yesterday?

Why are you still involved in all this, if it's all been so awful for you? "

I suspect he isn't. I suspect he's got it in for Montpelier because he's already lost and is on their case... the best that can happen for Montpelier clients is that if they lose, they lose badly. Then they can sue Montpelier.

[Squicker]

Alternatively the government may go all the way to the European Court itself of course, which would likely take another two or three years. And as i think you don't get your costs back from there even if you win(mey be wrong here) Montpelier may just quit.

You do get costs awarded byEuropean Court of Human Rights:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8453878.stm

[SantaClaus]

Simple observations -

Elgin QC could have done better on the tax - particularly when he "fluffed" the reason why Milne QC thought scheme did not work.

... blah blah blah

My first impression is that your are trying to put doubt in people's minds for your own twisted pleasure. Why should we believe anything you say after observing you handing notes to the Revenue after claiming you would help us?

[normalbloke]

Dear Mr Jones

1, Stop using this forum as a way to further your personal vendetta against MP.

2. Why are you clouding the legal issues in points b and c of your post? HMRC's attack on the scheme is via Padmore after the Archer v Baker Shee line failed. As far as I can make out from the info here, the Judge was far from impressed with the Padmore argument. Lets keep to the point here.

3. HMRC should have put up or shut up in the last 6 years. By just asking for payments on account shows they had no concrete way of refuting the scheme. You fail to mention that. And any views you have on retrospection.

4. Why pass notes to the HMRC stooges when you hope they will lose?

You were one of the main recruiters for the MP scheme. You assured people the scheme was legal. However, after you realised there was more money to be made on your own, you tried to woo the MP contractors to Suo Moto. Then you had a complete U turn and 'rolled over' to HMRC, saying you'd seen the light after another QC opinion. Then set up various other 'I'll save you' websites, spreading FUD to all. (oh and for a nice fee I assume).

I really don't know why I'm wasting my time responding to you, but you do have a knack of upsetting people, I'll give you that.

Lets stick to the point shall we from now on?

[futurecat]

Well said normalbloke!

1, Stop using this forum as a way to further your personal vendetta against MP.

2. Why are you clouding the legal issues in points b and c of your post? HMRC's attack on the scheme is via Padmore after the Archer v Baker Shee line failed. As far as I can make out from the info here, the Judge was far from impressed with the Padmore argument. Lets keep to the point here.

3. HMRC should have put up or shut up in the last 6 years. By just asking for payments on account shows they had no concrete way of refuting the scheme. You fail to mention that. And any views you have on retrospection.

4. Why pass notes to the HMRC stooges when you hope they will lose?

You were one of the main recruiters for the MP scheme. You assured people the scheme was legal. However, after you realised there was more money to be made on your own, you tried to woo the MP contractors to Suo Moto. Then you had a complete U turn and 'rolled over' to HMRC, saying you'd seen the light after another QC opinion. Then set up various other 'I'll save you' websites, spreading FUD to all. (oh and for a nice fee I assume).

I really don't know why I'm wasting my time responding to you, but you do have a knack of upsetting people, I'll give you that.

Lets stick to the point shall we from now on?

[Alan Jones]

Because i am in same position as you guys

Why were you helping HMRC today and yesterday?

Why are you still involved in all this, if it's all been so awful for you?

I don't understand but I think I and all the others posting on this thread wonder the same thing.

i aaddressed your HMRC Q b4 u posted - but my posts get vetted & therefore there is a delay for e.g. i am writing this at 7.30pm.

my position is exactly same as you expect my nemesis is not HMRC . I admire the never say die spirit because i will fight my cause to the bitter end.

However for me to win my appeal and save me going bankrupt, R u worried about making some poor inspector redundant or bankrupt. Answer is - if it saves yur skin NO . How many of you have had contracts designing HMRC systems - did you refuse the work on ***** . NO .

The only person fighting for me is me.