BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Toocan]

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.

A very encouraging update Seadog. I am grateful to you and the others for these updates. Did the Judge give any clue as to when he would hand down his judgement?

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

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@...).

DR, good to see you back in the mix after hoofing it around the Smoke. I agree with your sentiments.

Firstly, I know many here have pent up emmotions about the last few years and perhaps much is coming out now in real time as the JR unfolds. However, please don't lose sight of the relevant facts and please refrain from emmotional views even if they are warrented given the gravity of the situation:

1. This is a JR based on Human Rights
2. This JR is to review the retrospective nature of BN66
3. BN66 retrospection applies to 1987 legislation (Padmore)
4. Padmore does not apply to this scheme
5. HMRC were given transparency to the scheme claims for relief from day 1
6. HMRC only made claim to the scheme not working based on Padmore in Nov 2007.
7. HMRC applied Padmore to the scheme via BN66 and therefore with retrospection

As for AJ, well if you can be bothered to read the 2 references he makes note of, I would not want to make that public. I will not embaress him here but suffice it to say that there is a family conflict in business dealings which can be seen when you compare the 2 cases.

So, all, I suggest we let Counsel do their job on both sides. Let the Judge review what has been presented. Let the AJ matter go as it is more farce and offensive than warrents comment. Shameful, truly shameful.

The JR began with 1987 and appears to have gone down a road of social judgement. And as for the OECD position, the post I made last night clarifies that - TRANSPARENCY. Not a word which appears to be in the dictionary of HMRC or AJ.

Those with nuerotic issues should keep their thoughts and problems to themselves and those who can help them medically rather than hinder balanced society with convulsive juxtopositions of meglamania whoever they may be. This is a forum of real people dealing with real issues and we'd prefer it not to be deficated upon with such issues. I'm sure there are other forums for those matters.

So, keep your powder dry, keep focussed and let the Judiciary determine the next step. At least that is better than "the will of Parliament". And if not, then what of our Judiciary to counter the Executive?

[ASB]

Donkey Rhubarb and I shared a hotel room on Tuesday....

Is there anything you need to tell us.

If you can be bothered to read the IOM judgements Mr Jones posted I am not sure I would be wanting to draw too much attention to them. In any event they were made under a different jurisdiction and law, and for completely different purposes.

In the first this simply discusses whether Jones and Morris misused MTM IPR. It is not particularly concerned with how the scheme does or doesn't work, this is just background. It seems the panel were not entirely confident in the veracity of Mr Jones evidence.

The second relates to the delaying tactics around the hearing. There was, in my view, considerable implicit criticism of Mr Jones conduct in this regard.

I don't see how this case has any particular relevance to him - save for the fact that he may find it useful for his apparently still onging dispute with MTM. That, however, seems to me to be entirely separate affair. I don't see what sort of a deal he wants to do with HMRC - since he doesn't seem to have any outstanding issues with them.

[SantaClaus]

Great posts from everyone. It has certainly put my mind at rest.

[Ninja]

Congrats from Ninja

A heart-felt congrats to DR, Santa, Seadog etc. etc. (You know who you are).

(Another lurker) & I have been glued to the forum for the last 2 days. Unfortunately work commitments meant we couldn't make it.

I think Round 1 goes to us, but the fight is far from over.

[Taffia]

I'll second that Ninja. This thread is a constant source of comfort!!!

[SantaClaus]

Can anyone remember the name of the Judge who presided over the case?

Thanks

[Taffia]

Kenneth Parker.

[SantaClaus]

cheers Taffia!

[Taffia]

And thank you for the scalextric in 1977.