BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[Emigre]

Montpelier Comment

A statement from Watkin Gittins will be on the opening post shortly...

This will be the fastest comment we've ever had so be grateful!

[patbikeruk]

Statistics

As with all of these things only the bits that are of use are presented and used or made up.......

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!

[sgee]

Exactly - serious financial problems for 1250 people minimum, possibly 625 bankruptcies. Lots of reposessions, upheaval for children through divorce and financial difficulty. Is it really all worth this to the state - they will end up spending money to re-house and support a lot of these people, lose many of them as high earners. What are we supposed to think when a judge of all people cannot say enough of this madness, lets be sensible and find a way to make this all work without destroying all these lives? I guess the usual - and part of the reason we were chased into this corner (IR35) - the state has no interest in you being able to take charge of your own affairs, and as an individual of insignificant means know this - if you take on the system it will crush you. Playing the system is for the elite and big business - the rest of you plebs should know your place. Your job is to shut-up, goto work, do as you are told and stop moaning. Leave all the important stuff to us.

[deckster]

With you all the way on that. My son is due to start University this year. I'd like to be able to pay for his fees and accomodation £6k ish, but I'm saving everything I've got. It's a croc of tulip.

This I am not doing. I can't afford to pay my demand. One way or another, if we lose I am going to be bankrupt. I'm not going to be any less bankrupt if I save like a monk for the few years. I'm buggered if I'm going to live like a pauper until this is resolved.

[Iron Condor]

10% off my bill would be 30k. I am up for 300k.

You got a mention on the beeb website article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8484955.stm

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Update

Please can everyone read the first post.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ement-day.html

[robinhood]

A statement from Watkin Gittins will be on the opening post shortly...

This will be the fastest comment we've ever had so be grateful!

need someone to give some hope

[ready_to_leave]

no reason to stay

So, it seems the judge has decided that current public policy is more important than the law. Including the idea that retrospection is ok if Parliament decides it is so and that we could have avoided hardship if we had just paid up like good little drones when HMRC told us to.

I for one am now looking to leave the UK sooner rather than later. I always thought that the law and the social contract the law provides between the state and the individual was more important than the prevailing public policy. This is obviously not the case and the right of retrospection will be firmly enshrined if this judgement is not overturned.

With this in mind, I have to face up to what has been staring me in the face for a while, that we are living in what is essentially a Banana Republic. In such a structure, the Government can do what it wants whenever and is not subject to any existing legal framework, as it can be rewritten at any time to have been different. However, I have to live with the idea that my actions in the past could be penalised by policy change in the future.

This is too one sided for me, and is the final straw in a series of other similar personal and property right erosions that have happened in the last 10 years.

I am off to somewhere where there is a little more respect for property ownership rights in the executive and Parliament, say Singapore.

My Taxation revenue will benefit some other state, which hopefully will not splurge it away on keeping a benefit system going for 20% of the adult population in order to keep their voting base.

[ContractIn]

In terms of timetable:
14 days to make a written application for appeal;
A further 4 to 6 weeks for that application to be decided;
If rejected, quite normal, an oral submission will follow;
Once accepted the Court of Appeal Hearing could be as soon as November 2010. The CoA would need to appoint 3 senior and experienced Lord Justices for the Hearing which takes longer to organise.
The Court of Appeal could in its application refer the case directly to the Supreme Court which would take significantly longer.

What if it is not?
We've been flamed in court and flamed in the press (not that it influences).

I do appreciate updates but not thankful that for the first time we have had a direct input from MTM. I do now believe we need a private forum which should be hosted by MTM.

Rants over for today. Need to knuckle down and keep current contract.

[sgee]

need someone to give some hope

yes - I fear the comment doesn't really take the understanding fwd.. why did our legal team not advise us beforehand that this was not unexpected as the case needs to reach a certain level before it can realistically be expected to be given a fair hearing?

I am just concerned that even those who spoke to them seemed unaware of this prior to today, as there was so much positivity concerning the JR and the evidence. It seems that it has come down more to a case of - 'we don't care whether or not this or that happened, all we care about is whether the government are allowed to retrospectively do this under the Human Rights legislation'. Legally I am failing to see how that ruling today cannot have a large weighting on the "yes, they can" argument? Why would another court have a different opinion?

enlightenment sought..