BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[SantaClaus]

One or two naysayers on this thread have predicted that MP will drop the case if we lose.

But suppose the Court of Appeal verdict is really bad like the High Court, would there really be any point in them carrying on?

I have it in writing when I joined the scheme that Montpelier are committed to taking this to the House of Lords. I fully expect them to keep to their word.

[Alan Jones]

six of one and half a dozen of the other

Post below posted on non-BN66 forum.
Posted by BolshieBastard "Alan Jones sold out contractors who he 'convinced' to join his scheme to HMRC. He's pulling a similar trick with BN66"

I do not wish to post on this forum BUT i will respond to such posts as the above particularly when it is based on heresay and third party comments.

If selling out = getting a very good deal for contractors that most of them could afford (circa 95% take up with full & immediate payment of tax) and allowed them to sleep at night then yes.

BUT i would argue letting contractors face bankruptcy for the past 7 years (when legislation was on the taxpayers side to force the scheme into Court without waiting for HMRC - see Judge Parker re S.28) and holding back information from them (as reported on this forum) was more akin to "selling out".

IF you win and end up paying less tax than the SUO MOTU settlement WILL it be more valuable to you than to Suo Motu guys who have not had to go through the pain/stress of the last 7 years.

I know more about BN66/the affected scheme/how the scheme was "born" etc, than most people. I negotiated the Suo Motu settlement with HMRC and gained a lot of insight into HMRC's take on the scheme. The real answer is that this is a case of "six of one and half a dozen of the other" BECAUSE
(i) HMRC made a mistake and overlooked the real reason why the scheme did not work and then "back tracked" to get themselves out of a "hole". AND
(ii) Montpelier knew about Padmore and retrospection back in 1998 - SO i assume they advised/warned prospective clients about the danger of retrospection.
(iii) If the retrospective BN66 legislation is repealed and the scheme is then challenged in Court. Then HMRC will - imho - have a good chance of winning because David Milne QC (look him up on google) believed the scheme failed on 2 different counts. AND I recently came across another reason why the scheme could fail.

[TheBarCapBoyz]

I have it in writing when I joined the scheme that Montpelier are committed to taking this to the House of Lords. I fully expect them to keep to their word.

Well that's not quite true. What Montp promised was to defend the scheme all the way to the House of Lords. The current legal challenge is not to the scheme per se, but to BN66, the retrospective legislation. Technically, that's not the same thing.

My guess is Montp will continue the fight as long as it is in their business interests to do so. Whether that would mean going to the Supreme Court in a situation where all three judges had unequivocally upheld BN66 is anyone's guess.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Alan,

The scheme was sold by many promoters apart from Montpelier, and not just to IT contractors.

Several of the Big 4 firms were recommending it.

Some may have copied Montpelier but most will have taken their own legal advice.

David Milne QC is an eminent silk but his is only one opinion.

Personally I believe HMRC would have little, if any, prospect of winning if they challenged the scheme in court under the law as it was prior to BN66.

By the way, I have a question for you.

How did David Milne's opinion, which I presume you obtained and paid for, end up being entered by HMRC as evidence in Huitson?

Is Mr Milne aware of this?

DR

[normalbloke]

Mr Jones, (I thought you'd been banned anyway....)

"(ii) Montpelier knew about Padmore and retrospection back in 1998 - SO i assume they advised/warned prospective clients about the danger of retrospection. "

I assume you are the Mr Jones that initially sold the scheme for Montpelier. I remember you told us all in one seminar that the scheme would be watertight for a couple of years, at least until HMRC advised the Government to change the law preventing it. Don't worry, you said.... they will never do this retrospectively. This was reiterated by yourself by phone a few days later when I called you for a more detailed chat. Then you decided to jump ship and try to cream off MPs clients for yourself.

Excuse me if I don't believe a word you say these days.

You are becoming tedious in the extreme.

[SantaClaus]

Well that's not quite true. What Montp promised was to defend the scheme all the way to the House of Lords. The current legal challenge is not to the scheme per se, but to BN66, the retrospective legislation. Technically, that's not the same thing.

I beg to differ. BN66 is an attack on the scheme. MontP agreed to defend the scheme.

Yes it can be argued ambiguously, but that's what I expect of our slimey members of Parliament and HMRC, certainly not Montpelier.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Alan Jones is on our side, right? He wishes us well, right?

OK, so reflect on this.

On 26th July 2001 and 8th November 2001 he obtained legal opinions from David Milne QC which raised some questions about the scheme. These were later cited by Jones to justify closing Suo Motu.

Both of these opinions were used against us by HMRC in the High Court and Court of Appeal. The opinions were submitted in formal evidence and HMRC's counsel referred to them at some length in his submission to the court.

HMRC could not have used these opinions against us without Jones' consent.***

So, do you still think Alan Jones is our friend?

EDIT

***Apparently they did.

[Alan Jones]

Alan Jones begin_of_the_skype_highlighting*****end_of_the_sky pe_highlighting is on our side, right? He wishes us well, right?

OK, so reflect on this.

On 26th July 2001 and 8th November 2001 he obtained legal opinions from David Milne QC which raised some questions about the scheme. These were later cited by Jones to justify closing Suo Motu.

Both of these opinions were used against us by HMRC in the High Court and Court of Appeal. The opinions were submitted in formal evidence and HMRC's counsel referred to them at some length in his submission to the court.

HMRC could not have used these opinions against us without Jones' consent.

So, do you still think Alan Jones is our friend?

I can categorically state that i knew nothing about HMRC referring to David Milne opinions until they were mentioned in Court. Neither was i consulted/asked or otherwise by HMRC.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

As a postcript to the above, it is interesting to note that the David Milne opinions were the only legal opinions HMRC submitted as evidence.

And yet I know from FOI requests that HMRC are in possession of at least half a dozen other legal opinions.

Isn't it funny that none of these were presented in Court to "support" their position.

[smalldog]

Alan Jones is on our side, right? He wishes us well, right?

OK, so reflect on this.

On 26th July 2001 and 8th November 2001 he obtained legal opinions from David Milne QC which raised some questions about the scheme. These were later cited by Jones to justify closing Suo Motu.

Both of these opinions were used against us by HMRC in the High Court and Court of Appeal. The opinions were submitted in formal evidence and HMRC's counsel referred to them at some length in his submission to the court.

HMRC could not have used these opinions against us without Jones' consent.

So, do you still think Alan Jones is our friend?

DR, I havent changed my view and I stand by my sentiments about Alan Jones.

He sided with the devil (HMRC) to continue what appears to be a vendetta against MP or Mr Gittins.

In the process of doing this he has put the lives (and I dont say that lightly), of approximately 2000 people at risk, for the sake of his own sad little war. I think that says all that needs to be said about him.