BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[Moscow Mule]

The judgment is online:

Huitson, R (on the application of) v Revenue and Customs [2010] EWHC 97 (Admin) (28 January 2010)

IANAL, and I do sympathise with those of you caught up in this, but the chaps judgement boils down to this -

• You shouldn't avoid being taxed (3.5% is quoted) - it's unfair.
• It's so unfair that retrospective legislation is appropriate.
• You were told you should make payments on account - if you're in trouble now it's your own fault.
• HMRC might take into account hardship, but this is such an important principal (that UK residents should pay tax) that they don't have too.

I'm not sure if that is all 100% correct, but that's how I understand what he's written.

It's off to Europe for you chaps... Good luck.

[TykeMerc]

i was just typing the same. Why even botehr pursuing JR and not go staright to HOL/supreme or europe?

Probably because like all legal matters in the UK you have to be seen to follow the process and accept that the timescales can be ludicrous.

This is one skirmish lost, not the whole war.

You folks can be absolutely certain that if you had won here that HMRC would have appealed / taken it on to the next legal level.

[Cornish Cream]

Time for calm and reflection

I dont post very often but I am in the same boat as many i.e. 5 figures to pay and possible financial ruin!!!

However long this process takes and whatever the decision at the end - its just money - we can all recover from financial loss - yes it will be hard, yes it will take time but we can all recover - please all of us - try and be rational dont do anything crazy - the most important thing through it all is family, friends and life... we can all earn more money we can all pay off debt if we have to...

The fight has just begun - ding ding seconds out - round 2...

[sgee]

yes but

I dont post very often but I am in the same boat as many i.e. 5 figures to pay and possible financial ruin!!!

However long this process takes and whatever the decision at the end - its just money - we can all recover from financial loss - yes it will be hard, yes it will take time but we can all recover - please all of us - try and be rational dont do anything crazy - the most important thing through it all is family, friends and life... we can all earn more money we can all pay off debt if we have to...

The fight has just begun - ding ding seconds out - round 2...

surely losing round 1 is hardly grounds for optimism tho?

It rather feels like the judgement is a blanket ruling, that basically says if you don't pay the maximum amount of tax you could possibly be liable for then all other arrangements are considered unfair and may reasonably be retrospectively ruled against (why bother, they may as well just pass legislation saying they can take it whenever). How do we challenge that?

[johnnyguitar]

IANAL, and I do sympathise with those of you caught up in this, but the chaps judgement boils down to this -

• You shouldn't avoid being taxed (3.5% is quoted) - it's unfair.
• It's so unfair that retrospective legislation is appropriate.
• You were told you should make payments on account - if you're in trouble now it's your own fault.
• HMRC might take into account hardship, but this is such an important principal (that UK residents should pay tax) that they don't have too.

I'm not sure if that is all 100% correct, but that's how I understand what he's written.

It's off to Europe for you chaps... Good luck.

Actually, I was never told to make payments on account. I submitted my tax returns with full transparency and they were not challenged at all for 2-3 years.
The first I heard was when they brought in the legislation change.
So, does that mean that a tax return can never fully be closed/accepted ?

[helen7]

You might say this is just the first round lost but our appeals were based on the judicial review. What is stopping HMRC collecting the money now?

I am seriously considering legal action against Montpellier. They withheld information from scheme members and misled us the entire time.

Regarding the terms of settlement; are we legally obliged to be offered the same deal as suo-moto? Also, since our tax returned were being legally appealed, can we contest the interest??

[Cornish Cream]

Im not being optimistic - just realistic - trying to keep a level head...

We have not lost yet nor won yet...

This process that is being spoken about - if anyone can explain that to people who have no experience of the legal process and can explain it in laymans terms it might help to set expectations...

[sgee]

exactly

The usual rules for 1 and not the other - I had returns that weren't even queried initially until past the date they were "allowed" to. Doesn't seem to count for much now though

[bananarepublic]

Fed up with this.

I've been under the shadow of investigation for 6 years and am pretty much fed up with the whole thing. My next step is to talk to HMRC to make a contingent settlement of the outstanding money. If we win in the future I get my money back. I'm simply not prepared to see my liability increase by another 50% over the next god knows how many years.

I suggest that those who are unable to pay talk to HMRC. I don't think it is in their interest to bankrupt people. And the sooner the better, who wants the stress of dealing with balliffs - this is less likely to happen if you initiate a process yourselves. They will let you spread payments or take a charge over your house if you can't pay - they've done this before. Sorry but there are no easy answers to this.

As the judgement states we have had options as individuals to resolve this - has the advice we have been given always been in our best interest?

[Moscow Mule]

Actually, I was never told to make payments on account. I submitted my tax returns with full transparency and they were not challenged at all for 2-3 years.
The first I heard was when they brought in the legislation change.
So, does that mean that a tax return can never fully be closed/accepted ?

There's a bit in the last section about that. I don't understand it fully, but I think he's saying that there is scope for you to force the investigation to be closed if you want, so you haven't been disadvantaged.