BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Tuntun]

Welcome to the forum and thanks for joining. Any more lurkers out there?

There are probably many of us. I know six others that lurk but don't post. Five of those will be bankrupt if the ruling is unfavourable.

We've met, had a beer/water and discussed this. Four of us are regular goers of different churches/mosques/temples.

Five of us have children, some privately educated, some not. We are a true cross section of society and it's not this problem that has brought us together. We share thoughts and ideas, we call each other when we don't know an answer. I reckon we add value.

From my own point of view, if we fail here, I will leave. I will leave and speak badly of my country and how I've been treated. It's not just a case of the Revenue railroading or deceiving Parliament, it's simply what's right and what is wrong. As soon as any law becomes retrospective, our individual freedom is no longer valid.

Thank you all for your efforts.

Tuntun

[FredBasset]

From my own point of view, if we fail here, I will leave. I will leave and speak badly of my country and how I've been treated. It's not just a case of the Revenue railroading or deceiving Parliament, it's simply what's right and what is wrong. As soon as any law becomes retrospective, our individual freedom is no longer valid.

Tuntun

Absolutely agree, I love this country, but if we lose I am leaving too because I will no longer be able to trust its administration.

Regards
Fred

[swede]

I've been speaking to a Barrister friend this evening about this. The upshot was this:

BN66 applies retrospectively to Padmore legislation.
MTM scheme is not Padmore as per comments made from what the Judge noted and was never referenced by HMRC until 2008.
If there were communications in early 2000's which had opinions that the scheme did not work then that would suffice to be tested via litigation so why was it not unless this is unfounded or unlikely to be successful? And Note 63 supports this.
If Parliament "intended" 1987 to apply to a wider scope, then HMRC would have known that this discretion applied in 2001 and could therefore have applied it via litigation or moved to have it enacted via legislation at the beginning.
Scale of use does not carry since all laws which apply to individuals (namely personal tax) is just that - singular. There is no case to ignore a breach of law by one until it is breached by many. Self Assessment legislation concerns the individual not the collective and the case here is against an individual (Huitson). This view was derived from employment law.
Whether the scheme worked or not is not in legal contention. It is the fact that HMRC never did (or have since) proved this one way or the other despite their claims to do so via the Commissioners. If it is determined that this is not a Padmore case then even allowing some flexibility of "intention", HMRC failed to exercise their obligations to apply this discretion at many points in time.
Forum evidence - If it became necessary to subpoena a forum member to cross examine their comments, who are you going to subpoena? Santa?
Transparency - the whole point of SA.

In short, he does not see how this case holds up to scrutiny other than the larger story of tax avoidance and what it means to future case law. There are perhaps more politics than law in play here but on the evidence as it is seen, the date from which this scheme did not work was 12th March 2008 as per element 2 of BN66. Element 1 on retrospection merely clarifies the Padmore status. If our scheme is to be now brought in scope then this implies the 1987 legislation has been modified to allow it (at the discretion of Parliament) and is therefore a new law which supercedes 1987 and therefore is in conflict via retrospection of Article 1 Protocol 1.

Nicely put.

[KiwiGuy]

There are probably many of us. I know six others that lurk but don't post. Five of those will be bankrupt if the ruling is unfavourable.

We've met, had a beer/water and discussed this. Four of us are regular goers of different churches/mosques/temples.

Five of us have children, some privately educated, some not. We are a true cross section of society and it's not this problem that has brought us together. We share thoughts and ideas, we call each other when we don't know an answer. I reckon we add value.

From my own point of view, if we fail here, I will leave. I will leave and speak badly of my country and how I've been treated. It's not just a case of the Revenue railroading or deceiving Parliament, it's simply what's right and what is wrong. As soon as any law becomes retrospective, our individual freedom is no longer valid.

Thank you all for your efforts.

Tuntun

well put Tuntun, i have the same feelings, i will leave, being bankrupt anyhow, i wouldnt be able to work in finance anyhow.....thanks Gordo, another highly skilled person you will add to the job queue

[SantaClaus]

There are probably many of us. I know six others that lurk but don't post. Five of those will be bankrupt if the ruling is unfavourable.

We've met, had a beer/water and discussed this. Four of us are regular goers of different churches/mosques/temples.

Five of us have children, some privately educated, some not. We are a true cross section of society and it's not this problem that has brought us together. We share thoughts and ideas, we call each other when we don't know an answer. I reckon we add value.

From my own point of view, if we fail here, I will leave. I will leave and speak badly of my country and how I've been treated. It's not just a case of the Revenue railroading or deceiving Parliament, it's simply what's right and what is wrong. As soon as any law becomes retrospective, our individual freedom is no longer valid.

Thank you all for your efforts.

Tuntun

Tuntun,

People are leaving this country in droves, starting with the bankers and hedge funds and ending with the middle classes who have been so badly penalised, they can find a better quality of life somewhere else.

Eventually the only people remaining will be benefit claimants.

[BrilloPad]

Before anyone leaves the country or does anything hasty remember that HMRC watch these forums and might ask CUK who you are to stop you.

As we have seen in the past cuk is quite happy to shop us - personally I would prefer another forum where we get some sort of protection.

My advice - just do what you are going to do and dont publicize it until you are done.

[Emigre]

Missed this bit from my Barrister friend who works in employment law. If an employee kept taking sickies over a number of years and this was know to his bosses and HR and whilst they didn't approve of it and often reminded him of that fact, they allowed it to happen as it did not impact the company overall, then after a few years more and more employees started to do the same until a point was reached where the management said "enough is enough".

So they get together in the boardroom and realise that all these sickies are having a big impact on the company profits. So they send out a misconduct letter to all of them and tell them that their pay will be doct for each day they took a sickie.

So the bloke who as an individual (call him Huitson) did this for a number of years and knowingly to his bosses suddenly finds himself getting a load of money taken away because of the behaviour of others when all along his bosses never once implied that it would happen seems a little less than fair and proportionate not least as some who started at this late in the day will be far less penalised. Huitson has been discriminated against on the basis that the scale of the sickies determines how far back the penalty goes and he had no knowledge nor control of the other individuals behaviour.

Scale cannot be used as an argument as it implies plural. And the behaviour is relevant to the individual. Just as in personal tax.

Nice analogy.

well put Tuntun, i have the same feelings, i will leave, being bankrupt anyhow, i wouldnt be able to work in finance anyhow.....thanks Gordo, another highly skilled person you will add to the job queue

That must sum up so many people on here. He can forget his £200m over 8 years, it will be £200m lost each year.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Couple of excellent posts from tax_shouldnt_be_taxing

Well worth taking a few minutes to read.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/1052424-post1992.html
http://forums.contractoruk.com/1052428-post1993.html

[SantaClaus]

Before anyone leaves the country or does anything hasty remember that HMRC watch these forums and might ask CUK who you are to stop you.

As we have seen in the past cuk is quite happy to shop us - personally I would prefer another forum where we get some sort of protection.

My advice - just do what you are going to do and dont publicize it until you are done.

I agree with Brillo. If it isn't blindingly obvious yet, everyone should keep their personal affairs off this forum.
As we know, HMRC eagerly read this forum.

Life in the public sector! Can't be bad can it? web surfing all day

[FredBasset]

Before anyone leaves the country or does anything hasty remember that HMRC watch these forums and might ask CUK who you are to stop you.

Understood Brillo, by losing I meant we lose and I have to pay up and then I leave. Not leaving without paying.

Fred