BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[smalldog]

Hi smalldog,

Just trying to get my head around how, in the current climate, David Gauke can let taxpayers fund a legal process that he has gone on record stating that it will damage the UK.

How is that good for anyone??

MajorGowen...

Hi Major, Im with you on that one. We should have a call to arms, Im keen to get something moving, bombard him, demo outside his surgery anything....its shocking behaviour and we shouldnt just roll over....

[MajorGowen]

Anyone out there in david gauke's constituency ?????

Hi Major, Im with you on that one. We should have a call to arms, Im keen to get something moving, bombard him, demo outside his surgery anything....its shocking behaviour and we shouldnt just roll over....

We really need someone who is in David Gauke's constituency to attend a surgery, with maybe some of us outside for support.

He really does seem to have sold out, which (again me being naive) I find hard to believe as he spoke so well against this whilst opposing it.

This will obviously now go all the way. I expect we will lose in court case in November, then I'm not sure where the next step is - maybe House of Lords. We could have some joy there, as you can be sure that a lot of them have their finances tied up by Tax Consultants. Otherwise it's off to the European Courts, with the interest ever mounting. I can't afford a CTD so am stuck with an ever mounting debt

[ContractIn]

Sadly, when it comes down to it, we were just plain unlucky.

Other schemes have not fallen to the same fate, and it was just our misfortune to be on the receiving end of the last throes of a Labour Government which had been corrupted by power for 10 years.

HMRC simply took advantage of the situation knowing full well that the Government would be more than willing participants in this travesty of justice.

Now we are forced to try and obtain justice through the courts, which is a huge mountain to climb.

I'm pretty sure I know why we ended up on HMRC's radar.

Anyone remember being told there would never be more than 500 users?

[MajorGowen]

I'm pretty sure I know why we ended up on HMRC's radar.

Anyone remember being told there would never be more than 500 users?

The number I was told was 1000.

The higher number possibly set the sirens off, but cannot justify the retrospective changing of the law.

[RockTheBoat]

The number I was told was 1000.

The higher number possibly set the sirens off, but cannot justify the retrospective changing of the law.

but didnt Jane "liar liar pants on fire" Kennedy, say that the retrospective impact would be minimal because there werent a large number of users ... or something like that, so sounds like the old one hand doesnt know what the other is doing scenario again!!!!! . DR could confirm

[helen7]

I'm pretty sure I know why we ended up on HMRC's radar.

Anyone remember being told there would never be more than 500 users?

Oh yes, I was told by Watkins himself that it was strickly limited to 500 users and that the Arsenal football team was using it.

[MajorGowen]

Oh yes, I was told by Watkins himself that it was strickly limited to 500 users and that the Arsenal football team was using it.

I think if the Arsenal Football team were using it the tax liability would be somewhat greater than £200 million

[SLB]

Oh yes, I was told by Watkins himself that it was strickly limited to 500 users and that the Arsenal football team was using it.

I thought Arsenal were using something devised by Deloitte? I remember there being a front page spread in The Sunday Times sometime back in 2003/04.

Maybe they all joined after that?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

It wouldn't have mattered if Montp had capped the numbers because people would have gone to deGraaf, Steed etc.

At the end of the day, it was HMRC who allowed it to snowball.

If they'd closed the loophole in 2002 when they published TE63 then the tax loss would have been peanuts.

If they'd closed it in 2003 when they settled with SM and saw the first Montp returns then it would have been a minor issue.

Even if they'd delayed until FA 2004 the tax loss would have been relatively modest.

HMRC only have themselves to blame for it getting out of hand.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Arctic Systems case

(Something which might make you feel a bit more hopeful.)

As someone with an analytical background, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me that two courts can reach completely opposite conclusions on the same case.

But thank goodness this is possible!!!

Arctic Systems ' What next?

"It is probably fair to say that the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Jones v Garnett (colloquially, Arctic Systems) came as a considerable surprise to most of us.Mr Justice Park in the High Court had been unequivocal in finding for the Inspector of Taxes and the chances for the appeal looked very thin."

Have a read of the first 2 paragraphs of this article, and note the certainty of the High Court judge in his ruling. Sound familiar?

http://www.murraystable.com/assets/f...20fall-out.pdf