BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[travellingknob]

Padmore - out of hand excluded or very much included ?

I could envisage an outcome where the retrospective aspect of BN66 is valid in clarifying Padmore but that Padmore does not apply to the MP scheme. He might therefore conclude that with the evidence presented him there is no breach of HR in regards to MP because its inclusion in BN66 doesn't apply.

That then does not rule out HMRC using retrospective action in future and removes many of the reasons for either side to appeal.

Could HMRC let the montpelier case quietly drop and report in their figures that they saved the uk taxpayer £xx amount from 2008 on - that will depend on their internal dicussions around the strengh of their case after this ruling.

It would however put Padmore right back in the thick of it.

[travellingknob]

If the revenue did back down, the question of whether HMRC acted fairly and proportionately in introducing retrospective action might never be concluded.

Where would that leave future case law ? Probably nowhere

Humm, i'm starting to feel more confident that an early conclusion might be reached after all.
Dispite me knowing little to nothing about the law it demonstrates that the small wording of the Judgement might well provide a multitude of ways out of all this.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but this is what I thought I heard.
Can't wait to get my hands on the official transcript if it appears online.

The 1987 Padmore legislation only applied to UK resident partners of offshore partnerships. In its strict interpretation, it can't apply to us because we were not partners or members of a firm.

However, this is where the so-called clarification comes in. HMRC want the court to believe that Parliament always intended the legislation to have a wider scope than this, which they say would have included beneficiaries of a trust. This is just wishful thinking, and at the end of the day the law is the law.

In any case, if HMRC had genuinely believed this had been the intention of Parliament then they would have said so in their Manual, and they would have expressed it long before 2007.

[smalldog]

ok so if it is found not to apply whats to stop parliament or rather Timms putting something in next years bill thats a bit better defined to catch us all over again with retrospective effect???? this could go on and on and on and on...

[srhcompcon]

ok so if it is found not to apply whats to stop parliament or rather Timms putting something in next years bill thats a bit better defined to catch us all over again with retrospective effect???? this could go on and on and on and on...

Hopefully a general election result

[RockTheBoat]

Could HMRC let the montpelier case quietly drop and report in their figures that they saved the uk taxpayer £xx amount from 2008 on -

yes they could....

and to help them I have already working out what this number will be ... yes you guessed it

£200 million.

[warlord]

Thanks guys

Many thanks guys - sitting on coals here and the wife well - that’s say she's just one very small step away from a full blown nervous breakdown.

DR and the rest, your posts are spot on - pls keep up the good work. if you need anything just ask.

Question - have any of your guys logged onto the Government gateway lately? I just logged if to file my SA and it says I owe nothing - not a bean, no interest nothing.....???
Strange as I had a nice letter (CN) from HMRC 22/12/2008 saying I owed 65k and I had 30 days pay..MP did the business for me...what a nice Xmas I had in 2008. NOT
I haven't had anything lately from HMRC except a nice letter saying that I am under investigation for my 2007/2008 SA now....Boring

[BolshieBastard]

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.

**** off you total and utter piece of tulip. I ******* hope someone makes you insolvent some day. You turd.

[Toocan]

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".

It amazes me that hearsay would be allowed in a court - what if HMRC made those posts? That just can't be taken seriously.

How weak must their case be?

[Toocan]

ok so if it is found not to apply whats to stop parliament or rather Timms putting something in next years bill thats a bit better defined to catch us all over again with retrospective effect???? this could go on and on and on and on...

If Timms did that it would cause a constitutional crisis. There would then be a fight between the Courts and the Executive. It would be an abuse of process (if this isn't already).

It's not going to happen.