BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[KiwiGuy]

'No I'm Sparticus...'

i laughed out loud for that

[ContractIn]

They didn't alter it. It's just the posts appeared to have been from quite a long time ago before I added the Donkey avatar. The only reason I know this is that Junior Counsel, who was sat in front of me, had the file open while Singh was reading them out.

I have to say the Judge didn't seem particularly impressed. Singh even had to explain to the Judge that he believed the initials "MP" referred to Montpelier.

It was farcical, and it must be a sign of desparation on the part of HMRC that they thought this would support their case.

In future, perhaps we should begin all our posts with:

HMRC are lying to you m'lud

It was just in jest, but does show the desperation of hmrc by using this forum as evidence to support their case as could have easily been shot down on technicalities if it were deemed as damaging in anyway.

[KiwiGuy]

They didn't alter it. It's just the posts appeared to have been from quite a long time ago before I added the Donkey avatar. The only reason I know this is that Junior Counsel, who was sat in front of me, had the file open while Singh was reading them out.

I have to say the Judge didn't seem particularly impressed. Singh even had to explain to the Judge that he believed the initials "MP" referred to Montpelier.

It was farcical, and it must be a sign of desparation on the part of HMRC that they thought this would support their case.

In future, perhaps we should begin all our posts with:

HMRC are lying to you m'lud

I think alot of the comments on the Forum the HMRC has no argument against, i bet they keep on reading this and go "Oh Sh!t, Oh Sh!t"

would have been nice to find out the results quicker than weeks

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Brilliant.

Any chance you remember which forum posts they quoted?

No, except they must have been from at least 18 months ago because I've had the Donkey avatar that long.

They were trying to counter the hardship angle by making the point that some of us acknowledged that the scheme was risky and therefore it's our own fault if we disposed of the income before the matter was closed.

[johnnyguitar]

No, except they must have been from at least 18 months ago because I've had the Donkey avatar that long.

They were trying to counter the hardship angle by making the point that some of us acknowledged that the scheme was risky and therefore it's our own fault if we disposed of the income before the matter was closed.

So the effect & hardship topic was raised/discussed then?
It seemed to me that the judge was the sort of chap who would take this into consideration.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Why I am against a closed forum

Some people have suggested that we move to a closed forum, partly to avoid the likes of Jones but also to stop HMRC snooping.

Personally, I am against this for the following reasons:

1) Can we really guarantee a forum is totally private, with several hundred members? Apart from it being hacked, it wouldn't be that difficult for an imposter to infiltrate.

2) A private forum creates a false sense of security. People are more likely to be indiscrete if they think it's secure.

3) We would have to vet people. Montpelier may be happy to confirm people's identity but it's unlikely deGraaf, Steed would reveal the identities of their clients to the likes of me for example.

4) Even if someone was confirmed as being in the scheme doesn't mean they are friendly. A few people settled through Jones' ir35amnesty website. Some others have spoken to him about bn66.co.uk. Besides, HMRC has a list of all the scheme users, so they could easily masquerade as a genuine user.

5) We would lose the many lurkers who for whatever reason don't want to sign up. These people may be even more reluctant to join a private forum where they'd have to reveal their real identity in order to participate. When it comes to letter writing campaigns etc. shear numbers are what count.

6) The vast majority of what is posted on the forum is hearsay, personal opinion and speculation. One of the criticisms often levelled at Montpelier is that they don't tell us anything, and probably this is with good reason because they don't know if all 1500 or so of us can be trusted. Although I've had some contact with our legal team it is at a very superficial level eg. confirming court dates etc. They aren't going to tell me or anyone else something which could materially affect the case. In other words, it is not possible for us to reveal anything important because we don't know anything important.

Does anyone disagree with this?

[Squicker]

Some people have suggested that we move to a closed forum, partly to avoid the likes of Jones but also to stop HMRC snooping.

Personally, I am against this for the following reasons:

1) Can we really guarantee a forum is totally private, with several hundred members? Apart from it being hacked, it wouldn't be that difficult for an imposter to infiltrate.

2) A private forum creates a false sense of security. People are more likely to be indiscrete if they think it's secure.

3) We would have to vet people. Montpelier may be happy to confirm people's identity but it's unlikely deGraaf, Steed would reveal the identities of their clients to the likes of me for example.

4) Even if someone was confirmed as being in the scheme doesn't mean they are friendly. A few people settled through Jones' ir35amnesty website. Some others have spoken to him about bn66.co.uk. Besides, HMRC has a list of all the scheme users, so they could easily masquerade as a genuine user.

5) We would lose the many lurkers who for whatever reason don't want to sign up. These people may be even more reluctant to join a private forum where they'd have to reveal their real identity in order to participate. When it comes to letter writing campaigns etc. shear numbers are what count.

6) The vast majority of what is posted on the forum is hearsay, personal opinion and speculation. One of the criticisms often levelled at Montpelier is that they don't tell us anything, and probably this is with good reason because they don't know if all 1500 or so of us can be trusted. Although I've had some contact with our legal team it is at a very superficial level eg. confirming court dates etc. They aren't going to tell me or anyone else something which could materially affect the case. In other words, it is not possible for us to reveal anything important because we don't know anything important.

Does anyone disagree with this?

DR is correct, a private forum is not a good idea, for all the reasons he states.

Pretty much anything posted on this forum cannot be effectively used in court anyway. There are no certificates used, so we cannot have non-repudiation of data. It cannot be sufficiently proved that a stooge doesn't post and lots of the stuff posted here is under emotional duress.

And questioning levels of risk is not synonymous with the scheme being stuffed. God, I've posted on forums asking if an ISA is a better tax relief vehicle than a pension before, does that make an ISA a defective tax avoidance scheme? No, although HMRC time travel one day might, if this case goes their way...

WRT the posts by people concerned about risk back in the day, the posts HMRC used. Those people had their concerns re risk allayed, either by HMRC failing to open enquiries until a very late date OR HMRC mentioning invalid reasons for questioning those returns. Once a return is closed, OR if HMRC mention legislation that clearly couldn't be applied to the scheme, any sane person would go off and dispose of the money thinking they were in the clear.

One isn't going to stockpile money for nigh on a decade when there hasn't been a proper investigation or genuine attempt to crack the scheme. Remember, those early reasons HMRC gave for questioning the scheme all turned out to be unfounded. One would simply see the legislation did not apply, realise HMRC were barking up the wrong tree, and move on.

I can't see those printouts would have been much use in court for all the above reasons.

[SantaClaus]

Not as I recall. Some of my posts were read out but I was well pissed that they pre-dated the Donkey avatar. I'd love to have seen the expression on the Judge's face if he read what was scrawled on the purple coat.

I was also disappointed that Singh didn't read out our usernames. He just said "someone said this" and "someone else said that".

I was prepared, in the style of Jones, to stand up like a nutter and proclaim "I'm DonkeyRhubarb".

DR, you made me almost fall off my chair from laughing.

[poppy01]

...
5) We would lose the many lurkers who for whatever reason don't want to sign up. These people may be even more reluctant to join a private forum where they'd have to reveal their real identity in order to participate. When it comes to letter writing campaigns etc. shear numbers are what count.
...[/B]

On the subject of letter writing. Is there any mileage in restarting that campaign, given the new situation i.e. the judge dismissed out of hand BN66 being a 'clarification', as it was described in the legislation that was put before parliament. HMRC have now been 'outed', what they've done (what we always knew) is change a 20 year old law and then hit 2000 families with massive tax bills based on the rewritten law.

[normalbloke]

No, except they must have been from at least 18 months ago because I've had the Donkey avatar that long.

They were trying to counter the hardship angle by making the point that some of us acknowledged that the scheme was risky and therefore it's our own fault if we disposed of the income before the matter was closed.

The more I hear about HMRC using quotes from this Forum in court, the more my disbelief grows. How the hell can these quotes be taken seriously in a court of law when they are anonymously posted??? As people have pointed out, ANYONE could have written them and that includes the HMRC personnel themselves!! Talk about clutching at extremely thin and disappearing straws. Just because some poster has said 'Its risky', I'm then expected to save furiously for years until the matter is closed. You couldn't make it up.