BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[bananarepublic]

Point 1 No
Point 2 Yes
Point 3 Yes (2)
Point 4 Yes

Re 1) - Zero returns under investigation prior to 2008 budget or a non zero number?

[northernSoul]

UK court flow diagram

"Does someone want to knock up a process diagram/decision tree?"

Permission to appeal to court of appeal ->
If fails then END;
If succeeds, then

application to Court of Appeal ->
If fails then
permission to appeal to Supreme Court ->
If fails then ->END ;
else
Application to Supreme Court ->
If fails then END ;
else
VICTORY;
else
VICTORY
end application-to-Supreme Court
end-application to court-of-appeal;

after END ; then you are at liberty to go to ECtHR - but bear in mind it could be argued they are generally less happy to bash tax authorities than UK courts are. The UK government has also just plain ignored some judgments so even if you win, relief could be a long time away.

If you are considering suing Montpelier, it may be sensible to consider your options now before they start planning about how to deal with a mass of potential lawsuits.

[ContractIn]

Re 1) - Zero returns under investigation prior to 2008 budget or a non zero number.

zero returns under investigation.

[bananarepublic]

zero returns under investigation.

Well I reckon they chose the wrong case to take to court !

Your case negates a lot of the judges arguments.

You have had returns de facto accepted by HMRC - especially given their 2002 tax bulletin - and then reopened and taxed with retrospective affect.

[Squicker]

Well I reckon they chose the wrong case to take to court !

Your case negates a lot of the judges arguments.

You have had returns de facto accepted by HMRC - especially given their 2002 tax bulletin - and then reopened and taxed with retrospective affect.

I have always wondered why the Huitson case was chosen when there are all these cases of people with closed returns - i.e. an implied acceptance by HMRC that the scheme worked.

Surely a case such as the latter more throws into relief the disproportionate aspects? i.e. Implicit green light from HMRC allows accumulation of liability which then becomes disproportionate to the solution of the problem in hand?

[ContractIn]

Well I reckon they chose the wrong case to take to court !

Your case negates a lot of the judges arguments.

You have had returns de facto accepted by HMRC - especially given their 2002 tax bulletin - and then reopened and taxed with retrospective affect.

cant remember what SA had the CN issued first but I left the scheme in 07. My first CN received was xmas eve 08. So if it was for 07/08, still in 12 months. I will defo check though when home.

[bananarepublic]

I have always wondered why the Huitson case was chosen when there are all these cases of people with closed returns - i.e. an implied acceptance by HMRC that the scheme worked.

Surely a case such as the latter more throws into relief the disproportionate aspects? i.e. Implicit green light from HMRC allows accumulation of liability which then becomes disproportionate to the solution of the problem in hand?

That is true. Wasn't Huitson one of the 4 who had an early CN - i.e. prior to the 2008 budget?

However, we didn't know prior to the JR that HMRC had issued a technical bulletin saying the scheme worked. Perhaps some of the returns were inspected with reference to this document and not queried. And then revisited post the 2008 budget.

So the choice of person at the start may have been reasonable because we didn't know the judges line of reasoning. Doesn't seem good now though does it.

Perhaps this will be raised in the appeal. Or can we have a new JR, or take this one to ECHR?

[Squicker]

cant remember what SA had the CN issued first but I left the scheme in 07. My first CN received was xmas eve 08. So if it was for 07/08, still in 12 months. I will defo check though when home.

Also, a lot of the early returns were 'questioned' based upon a different set of legislation than the one HMRC have now used to close the loophole. If people sought advice showing that the initially stated legislation didn't apply to the scheme, they are then surely free to continue using said scheme having conducted their own due diligence. Rendering the judge's hints that, 'you weren't prudent and had it coming' non-applicable.

Surely?

[bananarepublic]

cant remember what SA had the CN issued first but I left the scheme in 07. My first CN received was xmas eve 08. So if it was for 07/08, still in 12 months. I will defo check though when home.

But I think there are others - apparently there is someone who joined in 2001 who still hasn't had any returns investigated or CN's issued.

[nuffsaid]

Did anyone have their returns under investigation or was everyone/most under enquiry?

As far as I am aware investigation has a restricted time-limit, but enquiry can go on for some time (as we are all so very aware).