BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[TAF4]

Keeping my fingers crossed that we will win in the COA and with a bit of support from this government it will finish there.

As I see it there are two potential outcomes.
1 - We win in the CoA on the Human Rights argument.
Hector then takes cases to the Commissioners to test if Padmore truly applies to the scheme as they suggested by their 'clarification'. That would be the best of all outcomes because Hector may decide that winning is doubtful and therefore not worth the cost or the publicity (ie embarrassment) that would arise. Also it becomes a fair fight between MontP and the HMRC.

2 - We lose in the CoA and the HR argument goes to the Supreme Court.
We continue to lobby various MP's and illustrate at every turn the gutless behaviour of all those players that know full well that this is a travesty but are now doing nothing about it. More embarrassment but this time aimed at MP's who will be taking the flak on behalf of the faceless Mandarins.

Political astuteness by this government would suggest that option 1 is the best route for them. The whole deal would shift to a purely technical argument about the legality of this tax planning scheme and it would move off the political agenda.

This Coalition is on shaky ground with a highly indeterminate future. They don't need this noise from us and can easily remove it.

I continue to have some hope that Option 1 will prevail.

[SantaClaus]

Then there's option 3:

A few Masonic handshakes later, we lose at the Court Of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

We then become no. 120,001 in a long list of cases to be heard in Europe.
HMRC and the LibCons are happy with this outcome as the case has been quietly swept under the carpet and probably won't be heard for 46 years and 9 changes of government.

And surely if HMRC go back on their word and come after us before then, we can each insist on our own court hearing. That's about 3000 cases to clog up the courts.

[smalldog]

Then there's option 3:

A few Masonic handshakes later, we lose at the Court Of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

We then become no. 120,001 in a long list of cases to be heard in Europe.
HMRC and the LibCons are happy with this outcome as the case has been quietly swept under the carpet and probably won't be heard for 46 years and 9 changes of government.

And surely if HMRC go back on their word and come after us before then, we can each insist on our own court hearing. That's about 3000 cases to clog up the courts.

i do get the impression HMRC werent expecting to have this sort of fight on their hands...I do wonder if someone at the top is thinking "Oh F**k it, what a cockup, that didnt go according to plan, the scheme providers were supposed to pack up and run off stranding the tax avoiding scum, and they were just supposed to pay the bloody CN's! Ooooo Brannigan, you were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off"

[AJDUK]

Another de-lurker

First time post; in the scheme from the start and I'm already on DR's radar. Have CTD's covering the whole amount because I put 39% of everything I earned from MTM away in savings assuming it wasn't mine until future challenges either came or didn't. Always expected changes would be fair, swift and prospective. I'm not particularly attached to the 39% (never considered it mine) but I want it back (!!!) since otherwise it'll add 5+ years on to my working life. Hope u don't see that as smug I just have always been a glass half (or totally) empty type and covered my backside. The wife never saw it the same as me and has had a few tears over it.

Anyways introductions over. There seems to be an assumption that if we lose at COA in November that appeals to higher courts will automatically be granted. But we've struggled with appeals in the past so I'm not sure that I'm overly confident that we can keep losing but keep being granted appeals.

Any thoughts?

[loftedtag]

i do get the impression HMRC werent expecting to have this sort of fight on their hands...I do wonder if someone at the top is thinking "Oh F**k it, what a cockup, that didnt go according to plan, the scheme providers were supposed to pack up and run off stranding the tax avoiding scum, and they were just supposed to pay the bloody CN's! Ooooo Brannigan, you were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off"

I would really like to believe that there are many red faces at HMRC because of underestimating the impact/response. However surely as Mr B was having conversations with Montpelier (I am lead to believe) before BN66 you would have thought he warned the senior HMRC bods that Montpelier were going to fight this all the way.

All 2500 Montpelier Clients were aware they would fight anything like this.

It would have been nice if someone from HMRC could come clean about this, but this is never going to happen.

[smalldog]

I would really like to believe that there are many red faces at HMRC because of underestimating the impact/response. However surely as Mr B was having conversations with Montpelier (I am lead to believe) before BN66 you would have thought he warned the senior HMRC bods that Montpelier were going to fight this all the way.

All 2500 Montpelier Clients were aware they would fight anything like this.

It would have been nice if someone from HMRC could come clean about this, but this is never going to happen.

just as a point to ensure HMRC get as little as possible if they win I have started using HP for any major purchases to ensure I have as little as possible with any kind of asset value that they can auction. Just bought a new bicycle and even financed that....some nice new 3D Tele's coming out soon too, sure I can get some 0% on a nice new home cinema setup. Oh and might as well upgrade the car too with a nice new HP agreement.......

For anyone that doesnt know if the Bailiffs come knocking they cant touch anything that is subject to an HP agreement as its not owned by you, its owned by the loan company...

This isnt me being a doom monger, its an insurance policy and gets me nice new shiny things sooner than I would have

[DonkeyRhubarb]

First time post; ... There seems to be an assumption that if we lose at COA in November that appeals to higher courts will automatically be granted. But we've struggled with appeals in the past so I'm not sure that I'm overly confident that we can keep losing but keep being granted appeals.

Any thoughts?

Hi and welcome!

The UK courts have seen a huge rise in cases over the past 10 years or so and, in order to keep the backlog under control, they've had to make it harder to get into court. This is probably why getting on the 1st rung of the ladder (High Court) is probably the most tortuous.

We may have thought it was a struggle at the time but it is normal these days for applications to go to an oral hearing. It is part of the process of weeding out applications to avoid clogging up the courts.

By comparison, getting into the Court of Appeal was a breeze. The written application was approved quickly and without recourse to an oral hearing.

This is not really surprising because, according to our legal team, this is set to become a landmark/textbook case because of the principles at stake and wider ramifications.

I therefore wouldn't be too concerned about us getting permission from the Supreme Court or ECtHR.

[silver_lining]

i do get the impression HMRC werent expecting to have this sort of fight on their hands...I do wonder if someone at the top is thinking "Oh F**k it, what a cockup, that didnt go according to plan, the scheme providers were supposed to pack up and run off stranding the tax avoiding scum, and they were just supposed to pay the bloody CN's! Ooooo Brannigan, you were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off"

Don't kid yourself; they have an endless pit of money to throw at legal support... mine and yours.

They don't give a flying foxtrot how long it drags on, how bitter the battle may appear to be and probably don't particularly care for the outcome.... if they win great, if they don't someones pride takes a knocking ... but then its 'done done, on to the next one'....

Ironically its people like Gauke and Co. who probably care more as the take the hit publicly... but even then I am sure we are minnows in the scheme of things.

So lets crack on and win.

[BolshieBastard]

i do get the impression HMRC werent expecting to have this sort of fight on their hands...I do wonder if someone at the top is thinking "Oh F**k it, what a cockup, that didnt go according to plan, the scheme providers were supposed to pack up and run off stranding the tax avoiding scum, and they were just supposed to pay the bloody CN's! Ooooo Brannigan, you were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off"

I would really like to believe that there are many red faces at HMRC because of underestimating the impact/response. However surely as Mr B was having conversations with Montpelier (I am lead to believe) before BN66 you would have thought he warned the senior HMRC bods that Montpelier were going to fight this all the way.

All 2500 Montpelier Clients were aware they would fight anything like this.

It would have been nice if someone from HMRC could come clean about this, but this is never going to happen.

Sorry and no disrespect but how on earth can either of you come to that conclusion? We've had IR35 hanging over everyone of us since 2001 whether we've been investigated or not and whether HMRC have won or not (mostly not, thank god!).

Put simply, HMRC are not bothered about 'embarrassment' or 'having a fight on their hands' etc. They dont give a **** about either of those things. All they are concerned with is taking as much tax take as they can and forcing as many SE people towards employment or compliance as is possible.

The sooner people dump the idea that HMRC are bothered on jot about appearring as a nicey nicey Government Department, the better

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Don't kid yourself; they have an endless pit of money to throw at legal support... mine and yours.

With a bit of luck, the days when they can take wild punts in the courts with public money may be numbered.

I read somewhere that HMRC were being encouraged to start settling disputes, to bring money in, rather than litigating at every opportunity.

It is no accident that HMRC's dispute resolution strategy is called the "Litigation and Settlements Strategy" (LSS).

When the axe starts falling in a few months time they might have to rename this SLS.