BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[smalldog]

Alan, firstly I still refute the claim that HMRC made the position clear and consistent it didnt work. I for one never received any such correspondence and I suspect neither did anybody else. NOT ONCE DID HMRC EVER IN ANY LETTERS STATE THIS SCHEME DOES NOT WORK!!!! Im sick of hearing such utter b*llocks, someone show me a single piece of correspondence from HMRC that says it doesnt work. In fact the only correspondence I have seen is tech note 63 which states it does work

You talk about section 28A this and that, how the hell are the general public supposed to know about this? Wouldnt HMRC have had a duty of care to inform me of such an option to expedite matters if it existed in correspondence? Did anyone else ever get a whiff from HMRC of such a route? I thought not, they did not ever once layout options for closure of the matter, they just said they are investigating the returns. Your implications being we are all experts in such notices and procedures, thats unrealistic

They didnt for reasons of either incompetence or purposefully keeping quiet on the basis on using this as some investment to accrue interest on monies they hoped to realise in the future.

[bananarepublic]

I am confused

I have to say I am a bit confused about this. Weren't closure notices issued prior to 2008? If memory serves me correct around 2006? I thought that SC hearings were meant to be going ahead (i.e. HMRC wrote to us asking if we would be bound by the result of the test cases), but HMRC went down the legislative route before these could go ahead.

So s28 could be used to force CN's to be issued. CN's were issued though. Or could s28 have been used to bring forward SC hearings, not just to issue CN's but to actually hear the case and to decide on the merit of the claim. SC cases were in the pipeline so I'm not sure what the argument is here.

Further to this, why would anyone think that HMG's legislative response would be what it was? BN66/s58 FA2008 was pretty unprecedented. Again we are back in crystal ball territory.

One more point. Hindsight. Isn't it great! After all, rather than going to HMRC with an offer to settle at a time when they didn't think they had a leg to stand on (I wonder what prompted their technical note in 2002?), wouldn't it have been better to force a SC hearing? Then instead of paying whatever the settlement was, the result would have been a payment of zero.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

JR Comment

"There were perhaps tactical advantages perceived by taxpayers in not pursuing such a course. There was a chance that HMRC, left to its own devices, and unpressured by any application under section 28(4), might come round to accepting that taxpayers were right and that the arrangements were effective to avoid, or reduce, income tax. It might also have been thought that, with the passage of time and long inaction on the part of HMRC, the likelihood of retrospective measures receded, and it was safer to let sleeping dogs lie. However, if such tactical calculations were made, taxpayers simply ran the risk that at some point Parliament might legislate to put the matter beyond doubt, and might well do so, as in Padmore, retrospectively, and with effect in respect of the periods when taxpayers themselves had not taken steps to bring the question of the efficacy of the arrangements to adjudication. "

My emphasis. Nothing like certainty then? Err, "sleeping dogs lie"? As I recall, the Royal Mail was rather busy throughout the period delivering letters back and forth between HMRC, taxpayers and MontP. Sleeping? Me thinks not. Just not doing anything apart from wagging of tails.

As for the highlighted bit, shame he didn't make the distinction between what retrospection meant in the Padmore cases versus this one...

Oh and please get my name right. My middle name is SHOULDNT_BE not NOT. There's a big difference. Just like with Padmore...

[Buzby]

How this all started

You are missing/evading the Question. Let me quote Justice Parker:

I know I should just ignore you, but as it has been pointed out before, Alan, it was YOU who sold this scheme to most of us. Why do you not spend your time trying to help us rather just depressing me on a Friday.

[WhatEver]

here we go again

.. put the matter beyond doubt, and might well do so, as in Padmore, retrospectively

but the judge got that wrong didn't he. no one paid retro due to padmore, or do you want to dispute that?

[SantaClaus]

And now for some good news...

With any luck, our debt to HMRC will soon be worth nothing in pounds.

Pound on the brink of collapse
http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-...=8583&ea=73750

"Sterling is on the brink of a collapse which will spark a ‘global economic’ winter’ so severe it will make the financial crisis seem like a ‘mild spring day’, according to legendary investor Jim Rogers.

Rogers, who made his name as a co-founder of the Quantum fund with George Soros, goes as far to warn that the crisis could begin in weeks rather than months and the government will be powerless to prevent it."

And our alledged 200M loss to the exchequer will seem like pennies

Bring it on!

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

I know I should just ignore you, but as it has been pointed out before, Alan, it was YOU who sold this scheme to most of us. Why do you not spend your time trying to help us rather just depressing me on a Friday.

Buzby, I don't find it depressing. It makes me glad I'm me. Rather amuses me to get another copy of the Judgement and then some rather unconvincing diatribe about the "what ifs" it could mean. Anyways, I think he's got other matters to be getting on with and whilst I like to be amused, I don't think the forum is the place for it. Every time he posts, I can't get help but think of the "are we there yet? Are we there now?" broken record.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

And now for some good news...

With any luck, our debt to HMRC will soon be worth nothing in pounds.

Pound on the brink of collapse
http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-...=8583&ea=73750

"Sterling is on the brink of a collapse which will spark a ‘global economic’ winter’ so severe it will make the financial crisis seem like a ‘mild spring day’, according to legendary investor Jim Rogers.

Rogers, who made his name as a co-founder of the Quantum fund with George Soros, goes as far to warn that the crisis could begin in weeks rather than months and the government will be powerless to prevent it."

And our alledged 200M loss to the exchequer will seem like pennies

Bring it on!

Santa, I have a couple of ounces of gold. It might be worth 200M quid soon, so I can pay for us all if needed!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

One more point. Hindsight. Isn't it great! After all, rather than going to HMRC with an offer to settle at a time when they didn't think they had a leg to stand on (I wonder what prompted their technical note in 2002?), wouldn't it have been better to force a SC hearing? Then instead of paying whatever the settlement was, the result would have been a payment of zero.

I'm afraid the irony will be lost on him. He really believes he did the best by his clients.

[Alan Jones]

Your Tax Advisor is a Tax Expert

You talk about section 28A this and that, how the hell are the general public supposed to know about this? Wouldnt HMRC have had a duty of care to inform me of such an option to expedite matters if it existed in correspondence? Did anyone else ever get a whiff from HMRC of such a route? I thought not, they did not ever once layout options for closure of the matter, they just said they are investigating the returns. Your implications being we are all experts in such notices and procedures, thats unrealistic.

I agree the HMRC cannot expect Joe Public to know about S.28 BUT your Advisor should have known and if it was Montpelier did know because it was used to good effect by them in 2001 re another scheme. This is the point i am trying to make.