BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[BarneyCool]

Excellent work Major!

Very good effort on the gov's numpty website. Enjoyed the read.

Well done!



still struggling to keep up with the puff heads.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Time for a reality check

I don't want to come across as a doom merchant but I think we want to avoid a repeat of what happened at the JR where people had very high expectations only to have them completely dashed.

My gut feeling is we will more than likely lose in November and we won't get a fair crack until it gets to the Supreme Court.

In my view, if anything at all positive comes out of the Court of Appeal hearing then we should treat this as a bonus.

Sorry if people find this overly negative/depressing but I think it's better to go into this with very low expectations, rather than face another huge disappointment.

(NB. A1P1 is Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR ie. our Human Rights angle)

Tax Journal

It seems highly likely that the CA [Court of Appeal] will uphold the QB [High Court] decision, but the judgments are awaited with interest.

Tax Journal

Several actions challenging retrospective UK tax measures as breaching A1P1 have been brought, but none has yet succeeded, either before the Convention organs [ECtHR] or in the national courts. We would acknowledge, at the outset, that (as Stanley Burnton J put it in R (ex parte Federation of Tour Operators and others) v HM Treasury) [2008] STC 547 (the Tour Operators case) 'the hurdle for the [taxpayer] on A1P1 is very high'.

[Slobbo]

Anyone know what the state of the Steed/KPMG case is (European courts)?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Anyone know what the state of the Steed/KPMG case is (European courts)?

Last time I spoke to them, a month or so ago, they still hadn't heard anything. (The application was filed Jan 2009!)

My guess is that Europe won't consider this until all avenues of appeal in the UK have been exhausted.

[smalldog]

Last time I spoke to them, a month or so ago, they still hadn't heard anything. (The application was filed Jan 2009!)

My guess is that Europe won't consider this until all avenues of appeal in the UK have been exhausted.

So our COA case is all about the human rights aspect, how can HMRC be brought to account for the way in which this legislation was passed, i.e. the legality of deceiving parliament etc??? Does this all just get forgotten about? The government state they are going to let the courts decide, BUT THAT IS ONLY RELATED TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS ASPECT at the moment, the courts arent going to decide if the legislation should have been passed in the first place and that retrospectivity was proportionate and appropriate, how does that get opened up?

As we all keep saying the COA is only looking at the HR aspect, so who is picking up the rest, Im guessing nobody is. In which case the government feel there is no issue to resolve with respect to how the legislation got through, if it should stand and what if anything should be done in future to prevent it happening again?

[Ninja]

So our COA case is all about the human rights aspect, how can HMRC be brought to account for the way in which this legislation was passed, i.e. the legality of deceiving parliament etc??? Does this all just get forgotten about? The government state they are going to let the courts decide, BUT THAT IS ONLY RELATED TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS ASPECT at the moment, the courts arent going to decide if the legislation should have been passed in the first place and that retrospectivity was proportionate and appropriate, how does that get opened up?

As we all keep saying the COA is only looking at the HR aspect, so who is picking up the rest, Im guessing nobody is. In which case the government feel there is no issue to resolve with respect to how the legislation got through, if it should stand and what if anything should be done in future to prevent it happening again?

May I suggest that we keep our powder dry. I concur with DR. Let's exhaust the HR angle first in the Supreme Court, and when (not if) we win, then let's go for the jugular. We will then have the moral high ground; although I would agrue that we have it already.....

Does that sound reasonable?

[smalldog]

May I suggest that we keep our powder dry. I concur with DR. Let's exhaust the HR angle first in the Supreme Court, and when (not if) we win, then let's go for the jugular. We will then have the moral high ground; although I would agrue that we have it already.....

Does that sound reasonable?

Ninja, of course. I am just checking when the government say " we are letting the courts decide ", they are sure exactly what they are letting be decided? I assume you know, but that does rely on them taking an interest in our case. They imply the courts are deciding whether the legislation should stand, when in fact they arent. Im not sure the wider audience understand this..

[Emigre]

Help Needed

We are struggling to maintain our lead... as Santa so well put it the puffers are catching up.

Restoring civil liberties — HMG - Your Freedom

Go for it.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Ninja, of course. I am just checking when the government say " we are letting the courts decide ", they are sure exactly what they are letting be decided? I assume you know, but that does rely on them taking an interest in our case. They imply the courts are deciding whether the legislation should stand, when in fact they arent. Im not sure the wider audience understand this..

Smalldog, if the courts rule in our favour then the legislation will have to be repealed.

Repealing legislation, especially on HR grounds, is a big deal. In this event, you can be sure a lot of questions would be asked about how BN66 came to be put before parliament.

[BolshieBastard]

I don't want to come across as a doom merchant but I think we want to avoid a repeat of what happened at the JR where people had very high expectations only to have them completely dashed.

My gut feeling is we will more than likely lose in November and we won't get a fair crack until it gets to the Supreme Court.

In my view, if anything at all positive comes out of the Court of Appeal hearing then we should treat this as a bonus.

Sorry if people find this overly negative/depressing but I think it's better to go into this with very low expectations, rather than face another huge disappointment.

(NB. A1P1 is Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR ie. our Human Rights angle)

Tax Journal

It seems highly likely that the CA [Court of Appeal] will uphold the QB [High Court] decision, but the judgments are awaited with interest.

Tax Journal

Several actions challenging retrospective UK tax measures as breaching A1P1 have been brought, but none has yet succeeded, either before the Convention organs [ECtHR] or in the national courts. We would acknowledge, at the outset, that (as Stanley Burnton J put it in R (ex parte Federation of Tour Operators and others) v HM Treasury) [2008] STC 547 (the Tour Operators case) 'the hurdle for the [taxpayer] on A1P1 is very high'.

I've reconciled myself to the fact I'll never see my CTD amount ever again. Its gone, lost, swallowed by HMRC.

As far as Im concerned, if we get any result in 5 to 7 years, I'll be massively pleased. But I wont be holding my breath. Same as with the 'new' IR35 review. I dont for one second think I \ we'll be better off financially. Maybe more certain of how son of IR35 will catch people but financially better off? Never.