BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[SantaClaus]

Fixed That for You.

Nurse! More medication for Mr Jones in cell 1 please.

Panel - I ask you - would you trust a certified Looney?

ROFL

[portseven]

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.

In some ways I sympathize with you in that you have this hanging over your head. What I don't get is that in you getting involved in this way, I fear you may be aiding HMRC against us because of your vendetta with HMRC

Maybe you have failed to realize but MTM (and others) are representing a lot of lives and families who's futures are at stake. Maybe you should think twice about what you are doing, is one mans revenge worth the livelihood of over 2000 families?

I am looking at at my 2 week old daughter, who is recovering from meningitis and thinking about this case and your involvement, wondering if you really realize the effect could have on her life and thousands of other innocents! Could someone be that bloody minded?!

[silver_lining]

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.

pityful.

et al,

beware a coward, they will do anything to save their own skin.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Alan Jones

The Donkey is back and he is cross.

Before I can share my thoughts on the proceedings I have to deal with an annoying irritant.

Let's be absolutely clear, this guy has his own agenda, and it's not about helping us. Anyone who was there for the full 2 days will have witnessed how he blatantly tried to hijack the proceedings. The Judge had to deal with him in his opening remarks on the first day. And he had to deal with him again at the very end this afternoon.

The guy stood up in open court in the first few minutes yesterday and proclaimed "I'm Mr Jones". He spent most of this morning passing hand written notes to HMRC.

Now ask yourself one simple question "why is he posting on this forum"?

He can't get at Montpelier directly. He can't get at our legal team. So he is trying to use us as a way of getting back at them and undermining our confidence.

It is not worth reading/responding to a single thing he writes because nothing he says can be trusted.

This guy is absolutely not our friend.

Therefore can I suggest everyone adds him to their Ignore List

Private Messages -> Miscellaneous -> Buddy / Ignore Lists

And while you are about it, add ir35amnesia which is also him. Check out ir35amnesia's profile email address if you want 100% proof (alan@...).

[bollox]

Bollox saw a few of them I think. I am sure he will update soon..... like I just said - he is worth ignoring.

I was sitting next to the HMRC chaps in the first row of spectators, when Mr Jones passed his first note across on tuesday...

I didnt have to crane my neck too much to read it, as the HMRC guy virtually opened it in front of me !!

it quite clearly started 'Hi I'm Alan Jones - I'd like to negotiate a deal....." didn't catch the rest...

I told Mr Gittens of this and he said not to worry and just ignore him, sound advice I'd say

can I just say great to meet everyone, and to put faces to avatars..

[seadog]

Report on the days proceedings.

Hi everyone,

Well I am back home in the North of England having attended both days and heard the submissions from start to finish, including the amatuerish ans embaraasing application for discovery of documents by Alan Jones.
(More of this later.)

Its been an interesting two days and both sides have made very profesional submissions to the Judge who showed an equally professional approach to the case and who demonstratd that he fully understood the points and issues raised by both parties.

It is clearly a landmark case with serious consequencies for all concerned, for HMRC if they lose the JR on retrospective legislation which will hamper future chances of doing the same again, Montpelier who will face a significant financial loss if the decision goes against them and more importantly for all the users of the scheme who will suffer because HMRC dragged their feet for seven long years before they took anay decisive action.

Donkey Rhubarb and I shared a hotel room on Tuesday and along with Emigree and Santa Claus went out for a meal after the first day to consider our position.

There is a great deal more to be said about the past two days after we have given it due consideration but bear in in mind the HMRC watchers and the unwanted interference from Alan Jones, perhaps we will find another way of disemenating our thoughts when we have had time over the weekend to put together a more comprehensive review of the proceedings.

Returning to Alan Jones for a moment, Alan had his moment of glory when he tried to hijack Montpelier and their QC but clearly his tactic backfired and whilst he will be entitled to some of the documents he wants I dont think he realises just how amateurish and unprofessional he appeared when he to the stand.

Let us remember his sole aim is to help himslef in his appeal against Montpelier in his appeal whcih coems to trial in the Isle of Man in March this year. He has no interest in helping us.

In reality if we win he has some unpalatable questions to answer to all those he persuaed to settle. Perhaps a serious claim fro compenstaion from them.

Alan raises numerous questions to try and cast doubt on the ability of Elvin (MontPs QC) and to try and suggest they could have done better.

Let me reassure you that Elvin was excellent, I have no qualms that he presented our case very throroghly and professionally, I have every confidence that he covered all the angles.

Sorry Alan you are just not in the same league, not even in the same field to make any sort of subjective comment on his ability.

In his recent blog tonight Alan mentions that the Milne QC opinion states that the scheme did not work. I think I am right in saying that their were two other opinions from the same QC when he stated that it did work.

These were done for Alan Jones and the Suo Motu scheme but cannot be produced in our case because they are priviliged to Alan Jones.

Alan, in a spirit of openess and transparency and with repect for the truth you might be willing to confirm the existence of those opinions and let us have copies.

Finally everyone, let us be pleased the we have had our fair day in court and it is now up to the Judge to make his decision.

[OnYourBikeGB]

I was sitting next to the HMRC chaps in the first row of spectators, when Mr Jones passed his first note across on tuesday...

I didnt have to crane my neck too much to read it, as the HMRC guy virtually opened it in front of me !!

it quite clearly started 'Hi I'm Alan Jones - I'd like to negotiate a deal....." didn't catch the rest...

Says it all. Pitiful and twisted. I think I'll just put him in the ignore list like DR suggests. A totally unnecessary distraction.

[bollox]

In his recent blog tonight Alan mentions that the Milne QC opinion states that the scheme did not work. I think I am right in saying that their were two other opinions from the same QC when he stated that it did work.

So jones obviously did his nasty little deal with HMRC hence why Mr Singh could refer to the one opinion which boosted his case...

I also thought Elvin was superb, and I asked the legal team how they thought it had gone and they said very well, they also said that the judge was a great advantage to us as he gets the concepts (think his background is in vat cases)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I was sitting next to the HMRC chaps in the first row of spectators, when Mr Jones passed his first note across on tuesday...

I didnt have to crane my neck too much to read it, as the HMRC guy virtually opened it in front of me !!

it quite clearly started 'Hi I'm Alan Jones - I'd like to negotiate a deal....." didn't catch the rest...

I told Mr Gittens of this and he said not to worry and just ignore him, sound advice I'd say

Sound advice indeed!

The guy has done enough damage already. Let's not allow him to pollute the forum which is our lifeline.

[TheGadgetMan]

I was sitting next to the HMRC chaps in the first row of spectators, when Mr Jones passed his first note across on tuesday...

I didnt have to crane my neck too much to read it, as the HMRC guy virtually opened it in front of me !!

it quite clearly started 'Hi I'm Alan Jones - I'd like to negotiate a deal....." didn't catch the rest...

I told Mr Gittens of this and he said not to worry and just ignore him, sound advice I'd say

can I just say great to meet everyone, and to put faces to avatars..

please tell me you are kidding, arent you?