BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[loser]

likewise

Likewise, I joined in 2003 and didn't hear anything doubting the validity until Feb 2009!

How can they get away claiming this level of transparency when it patently is not true?

When you read these it would seem we have no case to answer, and we must all be very stupid to have carried on using the scheme for so long! All these warnings, letters and even a newsletter. not sure what happened to all mine, I joined in 2001 and I think I got 1 letter around 2003 which said something like "we do not think this scheme works", then nothing until around 2008. can these statements (or witnesses) be cross examined in court, and discredited?

[SantaClaus]

Sobering reading, it all comes across like we simply stuck our heads in the sand and denied all. But what all this has attempted to wash over is of course that they never told us why we should pay them. They can say the scheme doesn't work, I can say the moon is made of cheese. Doesn't mean a thing, not without being tested. And we were ALWAYS prepared to go to court, ALWAYS, and we knew that they could close the scheme down, because we believed we were right. But prior to Padmore raising it's head, the only 'proof' they ever offered was Archer Shee V Baker - and that was so discredited they never mentioned it again. And all the time we were prepared to go to court / commissioners, and they did NOTHING.

We NEVER attempted to avoid the legal argument, I personally would have loved for it to have gone to the commissioners 6 or 7 years ago. If we'd won, HMRC could have closed the loop, and had all that money in the coffers right now. If we'd lost, well, hard as it might have been, we would have paid up, and many bankruptcies and broken families avoided. But they did NOTHING. What have they saved in timescales? I don't understand how that can hold any water whatsoever. Reading those papers, they have made it seem to clear-cut that you have to wonder why they even needed retrospective legislation at all. They sat, and watched it grow, they as much as Montpelier, are responsible for the schemes growth. Their very inaction was a clear indicator to many that they were unable to challenge it, THAT INDEED IT WAS LEGAL. Their failure to close the scheme down, despite having years and years to do so, without the controversy, the damage to the image of the UK tax system, and without the damage this will have caused to ordinary people, wives, husbands and children is either monumental incompetence or arrogance of the very highest order. What was to stop them changing the law to close the scheme then going to the commissioners to fight for the tax they were claiming? Nothing, not a single thing.

Of course they'll say they never accepted it worked, though their technical bulletin comes pretty close. Why would they? What HMRC goon would openly come out and say that it did? That's not our argument. Our argument is quite simple, and even after reading those papers, even after all the times they were asked, they were never able to clearly say WHY IT DID NOT WORK.

Read that out in court, you gits.

If I had to summarise the above in one word, it would be ENTRAPMENT, because that is exactly what HRMC are guilty of.

Now lets see if the Court of Appeal is reduced to a Kangaroo court under the auspices of somebody like Judge Parker or whether fair play is still a word that applies to the British Judicial system.

[Slobbo]

Damage Mitigation

My wife and I have been looking at damage mitigation strategies and have decided to sell the house and downsize so that we will have greater equity and if need be the opportunity to remortgage to pay the tax bill. The only problem is that the economy is so screwed up (thanks to our governments failure to regulate the idiot bankers) we can't sell the bloody house. So I am scared that if goons decide to steal from us before it is all decided, they will take my house, sell it for nothing and leave me with not only a tax bill but leave me owing the banks.

Can they take your house and sell it from under you for less than it is worth? I have two children of primary school age that this will affect, does this make a difference?

[SantaClaus]

My wife and I have been looking at damage mitigation strategies and have decided to sell the house and downsize so that we will have greater equity and if need be the opportunity to remortgage to pay the tax bill. The only problem is that the economy is so screwed up (thanks to our governments failure to regulate the idiot bankers) we can't sell the bloody house. So I am scared that if goons decide to steal from us before it is all decided, they will take my house, sell it for nothing and leave me with not only a tax bill but leave me owing the banks.

Can they take your house and sell it from under you for less than it is worth? I have two children of primary school age that this will affect, does this make a difference?

I think they can if they bankrupt you, but they have to give you a year to sell it, and if you have kids, the courts may decide it is in the children's interests to keep the family home.

If your house is in negative equity then HMRC would have a hard time convincing the mortgage company to sell it as they wouldnt get back any money. Remember, HMRC will be in a long line of creditors and they dont get preferential treatment over anyone else.

I am still of the pessimistic view that we are heading for the worst recession in history and the 2008 crash was nothing compared to what will happen. If that happens, the £ and property will be worthless and the govt. may be more concerned with riots than tax collection.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Sobering reading, it all comes across like we simply stuck our heads in the sand and denied all. But what all this has attempted to wash over is of course that they never told us why we should pay them. They can say the scheme doesn't work, I can say the moon is made of cheese. Doesn't mean a thing, not without being tested. And we were ALWAYS prepared to go to court, ALWAYS, and we knew that they could close the scheme down, because we believed we were right. But prior to Padmore raising it's head, the only 'proof' they ever offered was Archer Shee V Baker - and that was so discredited they never mentioned it again. And all the time we were prepared to go to court / commissioners, and they did NOTHING.

Excellent post. Hits the nail right on the head.

HMRC are never going to admit that an arrangement works. Just because they say they don't agree with it or they are going to challenge it doesn't mean diddly squat.

Why should we have paid up on their say so?

I know of another scheme (Sandfield) where HMRC committed to taking it to court and asked users to pay up with the promise that the money would be returned if the courts ruled against HMRC.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1190015

Guess what, 3 or 4 years later it still hasn't gone to court and it's finally starting to dawn on people that they've been conned by HMRC.

HMRC - Her Majesty's Robbers & Crooks

[Cosmo]

Anyone see Dispatches last night on C4?

Interesting that they (Polititians) maintain that Tax Avoidance that half the Cabinet have been participating in, is "within the rules" but the MTM arrangement isn't/wasn't?

Two-faced f**kers.

[SantaClaus]

Excellent post. Hits the nail right on the head.

HMRC are never going to admit that an arrangement works. Just because they say they don't agree with it or they are going to challenge it doesn't mean diddly squat.

Why should we have paid up on their say so?

I know of another scheme (Sandfield) where HMRC committed to taking it to court and asked users to pay up with the promise that the money would be returned if the courts ruled against HMRC.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1190015

Guess what, 3 or 4 years later it still hasn't gone to court and it's finally starting to dawn on people that they've been conned by HMRC.

HMRC - Her Majesty's Robbers & Crooks

Exactly. What we had from HMRC was a casual letter with their "beliefs" (there's that word again!). There was no legal judgement in their letters, it was just their opinion.

Maybe we can get some T-shirts made up with your phrase "HMRC - Her Majesty's Robbers & Crooks". We could wear them at the hearing

[Retro]

Court of Appeal - To Attend or Not to Attend

Is anyone planning to attend the Court of Appeal?

It's scheduled to start either Tues 2nd or Wed 3rd November*, and will probably last 3 days. Sessions usually start at 10.30 and finish at 4.

* we probably won't get confirmation of the start day until Mon 1st Nov

My feeling is that there is nothing to gain from a large attendance at the Court of Appeal and that this should be left to Montpelier's legal team. Yes, the outcome will have a significant effect on many people's lives but we cannot influence the decision. As DR has stated, the proposed retrospective nature of the legislation is without precedent and cannot therefore be enacted as a one-off, it would fundamentally change the legal system forever. So, leave it to the lawyers.

[xoggoth]

Not involved but so agree with above. If any tax avoidance measure is known of HMRC should act promptly, otherwise experts are going to start advising you that in practice it is approved. How are non experts supposed to know otherwise?

[Clownfish]

Do they have the power to decide, and what are the next steps...

Hi All,

With the quickly approaching appeal date, what are the expectations around this?

After the initial hearing, and many hopes riding quite high going in, it was fairly rough landing for most of us, and a lot of what came out after was that the court really didn’t have the appropriate authority to make the judgement we had hoped, so it had to move on up the courts. (“part of the process”)

Logic, emotion, justice, all that aside(yes, of course retrospection is wrong, but it was made law by BN66, wasn’t it?), here is my question:

Does the court of appeal have the power to rule on the validity of the retrospection? Is there any precedent for a ruling of this type at this level of the “Justice” system? Or, what is the next step?

On that topic, of the 3 that we’re aware of(MTM, PwC, Steed/KPMG), looking at similar cases, IF any of them are to find in favour, which would be the most likely?
Given they are contesting different aspects of BN66, losing one does not affect any of the others, but we just need one to find in our favour. Is this correct?

I don’t quite understand why PwC is being granted an appeal at the same time, or, is there something else? I understand they are contesting the same law change, but I don’t quite understand why they get lumped together, surely one couldn’t be deemed more appropriate. Or, is there a chance that the court could make a ruling against one that closes the door on the other?

DR, cant say thanks enough for everything you’ve done, and are doing. (BTW, I’m sure many of the questions/answers on the next steps exist on one of the 2.5K replies, but maybe its worth putting it in the summary?)

clownfish