BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[Europa]

Action against scheme companies?

Hi,

This is my first post, so hi to everyone on the Forum!

Apologies if this has been asked before, there are a few posts on this subject and I haven't read them all...

I joined one of these schemes quite a few years ago, then transferred to another IOM company running effectively the same scheme.

So, assuming that the worst happens and all other cases (KPMG etc.) and appeals are lost and we all then have to pay HMRC tens of thousands of pounds (and I'm in the 'lost house' category), can I not take any action against the companies who ran these schemes?

I have read through all the literature, web sites, emails etc. that I was given when I first joined these schemes and all of them state that the scheme is legal and that I will be able to retain approx 83% of my income.

If it is proven that these schemes were NOT legal could I then take action against these companies to recover not only the fees that I have paid year after year (for a product that didn't do what they said it would) as well as the outstanding taxation that I now have to pay?

Thanks in advance for any responses.

[SantaClaus]

The letter of the law says that you ARE doing something unlawful, because the letter of the law is s58 Finance Act 2008. Furthermore the letter of the law says you were always doing something unlawful, even when you might not have been.

You need the letter of the law like a hole in the head ! That is why Huiston's people were invoking the Human Rights Act and arguing, in effect, that the letter of the law was itself unlawful. The trouble is that once you drag in the ECHR you allow the court to consider loads of extraneous stuff - like the benefit to society of said legislation.

I disagree with your 2nd statement. Parker bought the "benefits to society" argument because he did not have the power to decide whether retrospection should be allowed. It was an easy way out for him to send this to a higher court. We also know that he worked on several HMRC cases and so his opinion was inherently biased.

How can you be so sure the same thing will happen at the Supreme Court or the ECHR? There will be 3 judges at the Supreme Court.

Your final comment regarding the ECHR is vague and without substance. Lets have some facts to back up your argument!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The letter of the law says that you ARE doing something unlawful, because the letter of the law is s58 Finance Act 2008. Furthermore the letter of the law says you were always doing something unlawful, even when you might not have been.

When we talk about the "letter of the law", we are not referring to s58.

We are talking about s62 FA1987 (Padmore). The Judge said that the scheme might have complied with the letter of the law, but it definitely did not follow the spirit of it since the purpose of a double taxation agreement is to prevent transactions being taxed twice in two juridictions, not to facilitate tax avoidance.

If what we were doing prior to s58 was lawful in a literal sense, then it comes down to a question of whether Parliament breached the HRA in introducing s58.

If it did not breach the HRA, then what is to stop the authorities retrospectively taxing any previously legal arrangement that they decide is contrary to the spirit of the law.

Isn't tax avoidance (exploiting loopholes), by its very definition, contrary to the spirit of the law?

[johnnyguitar]

penny-dropped

Apologies if this was obvious to everyone but me...

If, as the judge implied (?), the original Padmore ruling did not apply to us:

1. if S58 was not a change but a clarification of the existing 1987, then it still doesn't apply to us.

or

2. if Padmore, following the 2008 'clarification' does now apply to us, then it must have been a change, as it didn't apply to us before but now does.

So, is it a clarification ? - in which case we're fine as it still doesn't apply.
or a change - in which case parliament were misled and this is a true retrospective change.

So, can't one of us bring a seperate hearing, bascially challenging if Padmore applied to us at the time we were using it ? It would then force out into the open that S58 was a true change and not a clarification or re-interpretation.

I can't help feeling that there are so many points to attack that if we individually challenged them in court - on specific points, one at a time, then the truth would out.

[northernSoul]

Am I doing something unlawful. I left the scheme in 2003. What was the law then, was it the s58 Finance Act 2008? Its paradoxes like this which make time travel impossible.

The law in 2003 is the same as the law in 2008. Its the legal system : there is more or less nothing Parliament cannot legislate to do, including change history. As a scholar once noted, 'the uk parliament can outlaw public smoking in the streets of paris'.

In your case you are less affected as limitation means you will probably only owe from 2002-2003. Well, that's unless they claim that for some exotic reason they can go further back.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Why we all need to stick together

If we don't stick together, it would be easy for HMRC to pick us off individually.

A few hundred people losing their homes or forced bankruptcies spread across the entire country would be easy to slip under the radar, especially during a recession.

That's also why the Poll above is important.

Someone asked in an earlier post whether HMRC would place a charge on your home rather than forcing it's sale. Well, I'm pretty sure I know which they would rather do but they may not be so heavy handed if their behaviour is under the spotlight.

Remember, a number of people have already had visits from the Debt Collection Branch of HMRC, and that was through an administrative error.

[ToothFairy]

The letter of the law says that you ARE doing something unlawful, because the letter of the law is s58 Finance Act 2008. Furthermore the letter of the law says you were always doing something unlawful, even when you might not have been.

Let me clarify: By "Letter of the Law", I am referring to s62 FA1987 (Padmore). The Judge agreed that our scheme complied with the Letter of the Law after Padmore, but not with its Sprirt. Our scheme does not comply with the Letter of the Law after s58, and we do not dispute this.

(See DR's post for a more eloquent attempt at what I am trying to say)

If we were complying with the Letter of the Law between Padmore and s58, we were not doing anything illegal.

[poppy01]

The law in 2003 is the same as the law in 2008. Its the legal system : there is more or less nothing Parliament cannot legislate to do, including change history. As a scholar once noted, 'the uk parliament can outlaw public smoking in the streets of paris'.

In your case you are less affected as limitation means you will probably only owe from 2002-2003. Well, that's unless they claim that for some exotic reason they can go further back.

they reopened my 2001-2002 return (on 'discovery' premise) and I have a closure notice for that too

[poppy01]

The law in 2003 is the same as the law in 2008. Its the legal system : there is more or less nothing Parliament cannot legislate to do, including change history. As a scholar once noted, 'the uk parliament can outlaw public smoking in the streets of paris'.
.

And isnt this why we have a judicial system, to defend citizens against an overmighty state. Or at least I thought so until Parker QC, who would appear to consider it to be another arm of government.

[portseven]

Why only 2001?

Just wondering, why do we think HMRC are only targeting people going back to 2001? If they claim they are clarifying 1987 legistlation, why not got back to then?

My theory is that they are targeting IT contractors as 2001 was post-IR35

They really don't like us....