BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Squicker]

I have to say I've been feeling very negative recently. I'd just like to ask if Mrs. Miggions is making a huge celebratory pie in the shape of a huge pie? Ah, top stuff!!!

Still feeling negative but, after lots of wine, we are still right, and this is very very wrong.

If this goes through I fear for the future of my very young childen in this country.

I think we need to remember that technically, nothing has changed here.

It might be a fair statement to say that there is less of a business driver for MP to fight as hard as before (to Europe) but even so, many people have taken on the might of the state in Europe and won, off their own backs. There are some 2000 people affected by this mess, some of which are very high wealth individuals. If MP were to back out after the COA, which I am not expecting them to do (given their written pledges to the HoL), the very least we would ask of them is to put us all in touch somehow. At that point £1000 each would be a significant fighting fund.

So, given that nothing has changed at the technical level, and that what most people are fearing is MP backing out (which has zero bearing on the case itself) can be mitigated with some comms and solidarity, ask yourself if there is any logical reason for this recent smell of fear?

If you're someone who doubts the technical argument, fair enough, but I personally believe the technical argument is sound, it just needs to be put in front of the right people. And I am prepared to do whatever it takes to ensure that happens.

WRT MP; consider that even though they are bowing out of aggressive tax-planning for now, who are their low hanging fruit clients? Ones already on their roster, that's who. Even people engaged in aggressive tax-planning need the sort of advice MP are now selling, so they're unlikely to want to become known for selling out their promise of going to the HoL, as this is written and well documented. They could say that the Sup Ct is a different matter (even thought it's different only in name), but they'd be seen to have broken the spirit of that agreement and those low-hanging fruit clients they want to on-board to the new business model ASAP, would soon disappear. Just because it's a different business area doesn't mean it would not affect the general level of trust and good will towards MP in the market as a whole.

ALSO, they may wish to come back into aggressive tax-planning at some future point. Consider that all we actually have is a load of govt hot air and a test-case (ours). The law may not prove able to enforce these sound-bites from the govt, and MP may realise they can come back to that market and pick up where they left off. However, that door would be firmly closed to them if they bowed out prior to HoL\Sup Ct commitment as they'd be seen as fair weather only friends. I very much doubt they want to shut the door on that business.

Before anyones says I am naive or overly optimistic, just consider that MP are sure to take a logical and risk-based approach to business.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I think all the negativity has been way overdone.

It's sensible to keep our feet on the ground and not have too high expectations but shouldn't we at least wait for the decision of the court before writing the appeal off completely?

Let's take it one step at a time rather than engaging in all this endless speculation.

[Squicker]

I think all the negativity has been way overdone.

It's sensible to keep our feet on the ground and not have too high expectations but shouldn't we at least wait for the decision of the court before writing the appeal off completely?

Let's take it one step at a time rather than engaging in all this endless speculation.

Completely agree with this, nothing at the technical level has changed. We have to remain unemotionally involved.

I find being part of the forum makes that harder, the friends I have in this predicament who do no participate on here, are in a much better shape mentally than us, as they are merely letting events take their course.

So I'll be off here from now on.

I wish you all the best

[loser]

I think we need to remember that technically, nothing has changed here.

It might be a fair statement to say that there is less of a business driver for MP to fight as hard as before (to Europe) but even so, many people have taken on the might of the state in Europe and won, off their own backs. There are some 2000 people affected by this mess, some of which are very high wealth individuals. If MP were to back out after the COA, which I am not expecting them to do (given their written pledges to the HoL), the very least we would ask of them is to put us all in touch somehow. At that point £1000 each would be a significant fighting fund.

So, given that nothing has changed at the technical level, and that what most people are fearing is MP backing out (which has zero bearing on the case itself) can be mitigated with some comms and solidarity, ask yourself if there is any logical reason for this recent smell of fear?

If you're someone who doubts the technical argument, fair enough, but I personally believe the technical argument is sound, it just needs to be put in front of the right people. And I am prepared to do whatever it takes to ensure that happens.

WRT MP; consider that even though they are bowing out of aggressive tax-planning for now, who are their low hanging fruit clients? Ones already on their roster, that's who. Even people engaged in aggressive tax-planning need the sort of advice MP are now selling, so they're unlikely to want to become known for selling out their promise of going to the HoL, as this is written and well documented. They could say that the Sup Ct is a different matter (even thought it's different only in name), but they'd be seen to have broken the spirit of that agreement and those low-hanging fruit clients they want to on-board to the new business model ASAP, would soon disappear. Just because it's a different business area doesn't mean it would not affect the general level of trust and good will towards MP in the market as a whole.

ALSO, they may wish to come back into aggressive tax-planning at some future point. Consider that all we actually have is a load of govt hot air and a test-case (ours). The law may not prove able to enforce these sound-bites from the govt, and MP may realise they can come back to that market and pick up where they left off. However, that door would be firmly closed to them if they bowed out prior to HoL\Sup Ct commitment as they'd be seen as fair weather only friends. I very much doubt they want to shut the door on that business.

Before anyones says I am naive or overly optimistic, just consider that MP are sure to take a logical and risk-based approach to business.

Bottom line for me is that if this does eventually go against us - not that I'm by any means accepting that that is likely at this point - HMRC are likely to bankrupt me and I and my family will lose pretty much everything. I would much rather put every penny into legal bills to fight this than just roll over and let HMRC steal money from me, which is what they are quite literally trying to do, so if we do lose, I'll plough everything penny I have into representation for myself - the alternative is to lose everything anyway!

[shrek]

Agree with this

I think all the negativity has been way overdone.

It's sensible to keep our feet on the ground and not have too high expectations but shouldn't we at least wait for the decision of the court before writing the appeal off completely?

Let's take it one step at a time rather than engaging in all this endless speculation.

Couldn't agree more.... Absolutely senseless to speculate right now.

[GottaBeOptimistic]

We're all looking for the same result, let's keep fingers crossed that we get it......

[Squicker]

Bottom line for me is that if this does eventually go against us - not that I'm by any means accepting that that is likely at this point - HMRC are likely to bankrupt me and I and my family will lose pretty much everything. I would much rather put every penny into legal bills to fight this than just roll over and let HMRC steal money from me, which is what they are quite literally trying to do, so if we do lose, I'll plough everything penny I have into representation for myself - the alternative is to lose everything anyway!

I got to add one thing before tomorrow. I was just discussing with my partner how tulip I'll feel about not being able to provide financial security for my family and she said, "what you have to think about is that everyone dies, and therefore ends up with nothing. It's not financial security on that journey that matters, it's how you show someone you love them and how you show me and the children you love us and make us feel emotionally secure. That's what makes good lives, not money".

So, for anyone worried about providing for their families and all the rest of the things that keep us awake at night, think on that.

[Clownfish]

is the best "resultgoing to be that good anyway?

I think all the negativity has been way overdone.

It's sensible to keep our feet on the ground and not have too high expectations but shouldn't we at least wait for the decision of the court before writing the appeal off completely?

Let's take it one step at a time rather than engaging in all this endless speculation.

Agree completly, but there is still one massive question I cant quite get out of my head. It comes from point 72 in parkers decision(link on 1st post). This is with regards to Justice Parkers PRE-legislation(BN66) summary.

"
I would summarise the foregoing analysis as follows. The tax efficacy of the arrangements was far from clear cut. ...............*IT CONTINUES*.......... I do not believe that the outcome of any legal proceedings in respect of the arrangements would have been a foregone conclusion. They would, I believe, have been complex, protracted and costly.
"

Can anyoine clarify, if the 3 COA judges for Huitson v HMRC did happen to find in our favour regarding retrospection, dont "we" then need to contest that the DTA scheme used for avoidance did in fact work and should be applied?

cf.

[TheBarCapBoyz]

Does anyone know if inability to pay, i.e, impending bankruptcy, would be grounds for an appeal against a CN?

I would guess not.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Can anyoine clarify, if the 3 COA judges for Huitson v HMRC did happen to find in our favour regarding retrospection, dont "we" then need to contest that the DTA scheme used for avoidance did in fact work and should be applied?

cf.

We wouldn't need to do anything. It would be down to HMRC to decide if they wanted to pursue the matter any further.

Whilst it's a hypothetical possibility, I'm certainly not concerning myself with this.

As I said previously, let's take one step at a time and cross each bridge as we come to it.