BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[sgee]

just to make me feel a little more positive eh? I would smiley emoticon, but I can;t bring myself too.

[robinhood]

My understanding is that it is not for the High Court to "reinterpret" law with respect to policy issues. In other words, this judge has said retrospection is not incompatible with human rights as the law stands. Higher courts though, specifically the Supreme Court, do have those powers and indeed this kind of case is precisely what the Supreme Court is for. ie to look at the wider issues.

Additionally this case has such wide reaching implications that the matter may come up for discussion again after the next election, if the Tories win.

Whats the legal definition of legitimate 'tax planning' and 'dodging' ? Can any area where you get a tax advantage now be under retrospective scrutiny from HRMC. No wonder the tax advisors are worried

[KiwiGuy]

Yes - its true, just feeling a bit like the world is against us thas'all

on the good side, after the next election hopefully all those people will be out of jobs

[sgee]

I don't think it will make much difference. I get the impression people like us are an itch to be scratched in the normally docile and obedient "economically independent of the state and no interest in it really, but not rich" classes. The cash cow has an itchy udder so to speak - call the vet and have it treated.

[TheBarCapBoyz]

Whats the legal definition of legitimate 'tax planning' and 'dodging' ? Can any area where you get a tax advantage now be under retrospective scrutiny from HRMC. No wonder the tax advisors are worried

Exactly. And presumably it is that wider question that will come under more scrutiny in the higher courts. And we may see a different outcome as the implications are pretty profound.

HMRC - bless 'em -must be licking their lips with glee at the thought of all the laws they can re-write.

[Emigre]

Court Today

It was great to see so many turn up today at Court. Sorry not have met you all but i'm sure there will be further opportunities.

The result today wasn't what we wanted, the judgement seems harsh in many ways, but having the benefit of hearing our legal team explain the circumstances I genuinely believe we really are no better or worse off than we were a few weeks ago. Yes it would have been great to share a drink with a few of you afterwards in celebration, and yes it would be great to hold the bragging rights ahead of the next round BUT we are playing in a park that is not our own, that we have little experience of, and which is full of wiser people. Two such people engaged with us afterwards today and told us the rules. We cannot change them but we can learn them, hone our skills and win, its only a matter of time.

Lord Denning would have invoked the law of equity to our situation. He went on to become Master of the Rolls...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Well, looks like the survey backfired on us and was presented incorrectly.

"Fiftey-seven other scheme users cannot meet the tax demand, even if they were to sell all of their assets including their family home," Mr Huitson's barrister claimed.
"Twenty-nine scheme users could only settle by selling or re-mortgaging their family home," he added.

Surely it should have started with 'Of 200 users asked..'

Now it looks like of the 2500 people, it will only actually effects 90 people seriously!

Actually, there were only 92 users surveyed.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/13308.htm#a7

Of the 92 who responded:

* 57 (62%) said they could not meet the tax demand, even if they sold all of their assets including their family home.
* 29 (31%) could only settle by selling or, where possible, remortgaging their home
* 6 (7%) could cover the liability from savings/investments or by delaying retirement

[sgee]

yes - but remember all those people who would be caught should have understood exactly what the intent of parliament might have been / could have been / possibly was when the laws were written. Any professional advice these non-legals had when they embarked on courses of action having rigorously examined and understood the technicalties of those laws should be taken with this in mind, and therefore (very professional) a "pinch of salt".

I seem to remember using the same argument when I write specifications and then argue about the escalating costs of implementation.. (there a techie reference, I must be feeling better). Shame the specifications are part of the contract and anything else is down to negotiation and goodwill. Although ironically, thinking about it, perhaps if I did actually take it to court I would get what I wanted!

[Iron Condor]

Worth remembering the Arctic case as well.

They lost at the Commissioners, then they lost at the High Court.

Then they won at the Court of Appeal and that decision was upheld in the House of Lords.

It's the final round that counts not the first, or even the second.

I dont think the Artic case was new legislation that had been passed by parliament.

I think this more like the IR35 challenge which was new legislation that was also challenged on the basis of human rights.

Does anyone remember what happend after the PCG lost the IR35 case in the high court. Did they appeal or did they give up?

[WhatEver]

BBC quoting this forum now!

BBC story...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8484955.stm
"A website forum for users of the Montpelier scheme contains claims from one person who says she now faces paying £300,000 in back taxes"

Probably from here.. http://forums.contractoruk.com/1058332-post195.html

Hello BBC Journo, how about a little balance here plse