BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[SantaClaus]

The details arent difficult for the learned judges. Its a misconception many people have when judgements take as long as this.

What they are doing is making sure their judgement, whichever way it falls, is as legally flawless as it can be.

The cynical side of me says they are working out how to deliver the (negative) judgement in such a way that it can't be taken to a higher court.

I'd love to be proved wrong though!

[seadog]

They aren't deciding on the legality of the scheme (more's the pity). They are deliberating on the Human Rights aspect of the retrospective nature of s.58.

You raise a very significant point. This is why HMRC did not take it through the tax Courts. Going for retrospection allowed them to hoodwink Parliament and bypass any legal review on the validity of the scheme.

As you rightly say the Judges are only looking at whether the retrospection breached our human rights and that is a much harder hurdle to jump through. That’s exactly what HMRC calculated when they came up with the retrospective legislation route.

Reminds me of the phrase “Institutional dishonesty” about the way HMRC have behaved. But that’s what bully’s do.

[seadog]

Judgement day

Yes - I read this forum everyday and I must admit the suspense is killing me

Hi Guys

Judgement day must inevitably be getting nearer. When it arrives, if we lose a second time, a very large number of people are going to be devastated by the prospect of HMRC knocking on the door.

What are we planning to do?

[ContractIn]

Hi Guys

Judgement day must inevitably be getting nearer. When it arrives, if we lose a second time, a very large number of people are going to be devastated by the prospect of HMRC knocking on the door.

What are we planning to do?

For me I will wait on MTM to advise on their next steps. I would hope that this is provided in a timely manner. Until then I don't have any firm plans.

[normalbloke]

Hi Guys

Judgement day must inevitably be getting nearer. When it arrives, if we lose a second time, a very large number of people are going to be devastated by the prospect of HMRC knocking on the door.

What are we planning to do?

TBH I don't expect us to 'win' this one either. MP said they'd take it to the Supreme Court if need be. What I do expect is that the subjective 'fair share of tax' rubbish and Parker's warped moral compass arguments don't cloud the hard legalities of the situation. As has been said before, overturning legislation normally comes at the SC level.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

TBH I don't expect us to 'win' this one either. MP said they'd take it to the Supreme Court if need be. What I do expect is that the subjective 'fair share of tax' rubbish and Parker's warped moral compass arguments don't cloud the hard legalities of the situation. As has been said before, overturning legislation normally comes at the SC level.

Well at least the judges have given it a bit more deliberation this time.

I just checked the High court judgment to remind myself of how quick it was. There were 7 days between the end of the hearing and the judgment.

A bit different than 4 months!

[OnYourBikeGB]

Well at least the judges have given it a bit more deliberation this time.

I just checked the High court judgment to remind myself of how quick it was. There were 7 days between the end of the hearing and the judgment.

A bit different than 4 months!

I think that's as much as we can hope for. They must be studying this very closely. If it was as clearcut as Parker obviously thought it was, it would have been done and dusted by now. In reality he may have created a minefield for them but magically creating new concepts. I'm assuming here that part of their judgment must be include examining if Parker's judgment was sound (correct me if I am wrong) and not just the argument itself. The concept of 'fairness' is so wooly, that they are going to have to be extremely careful to ensure that this is relevant to us I'm hopeful that this judgment will be more positive. A 2-1 split against us with some damning statements against hector will do nicely at this stage. Anything better would be very nice indeed. I wonder if hector is feeling a bit anxious as well? I suspect he may be, after the hands down victory last time round.

[smalldog]

I think that's as much as we can hope for. They must be studying this very closely. If it was as clearcut as Parker obviously thought it was, it would have been done and dusted by now. In reality he may have created a minefield for them but magically creating new concepts. I'm assuming here that part of their judgment must be include examining if Parker's judgment was sound (correct me if I am wrong) and not just the argument itself. The concept of 'fairness' is so wooly, that they are going to have to be extremely careful to ensure that this is relevant to us I'm hopeful that this judgment will be more positive. A 2-1 split against us with some damning statements against hector will do nicely at this stage. Anything better would be very nice indeed. I wonder if hector is feeling a bit anxious as well? I suspect he may be, after the hands down victory last time round.

I assume its also possible they will not give a judgement and just push it upto SC, or directly to europe??

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I assume its also possible they will not give a judgement and just push it upto SC, or directly to europe??

They could refer PwC's case to the European Court of Justice. This happens quite a lot in cases involving the EU Treaty.

Here is an example. Note the Case has been "stood out", and the status is "Awaiting ECJ reference".

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/l...se_id=20081388

As far as I'm aware, the Court of Appeal have to give a judgment in our case. They can grant "leave to appeal" to the Supreme Court, although this is exceptional and usually you have to apply to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal.

Since the convention on human rights is incorporated into UK Law under the Human Rights Act, there is no mechanism to "push" a case to Europe.

If you can't get satisfaction on an HR issue in the Supreme Court, and you want to take it futher, then you have to apply directly to the European Court of Human Rights. There is no mechanism to appeal a decision of the SC to the ECtHR.

NB. the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) are entirely separate courts, dealing with completely different branches of the law.

This explains it.

Courts of England and Wales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...any court in the UK may refer a particular point of law relating to European Union law to the ECJ for determination.

It is not possible to appeal the decision of any court in England and Wales to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Although it is frequent to hear media references to an "appeal" being taken "to Europe", what actually takes place is rather different.

[Slobbo]

Trustee and Partner

Ok we are arguing the human rights angle but could this not be fought on the partner/Trustee perspective as well? Did Parker not raise a point that a Trustee and partner were different and that the earlier legislation did not include trustees. By saying that a partner and a trustee are the same thing are they not redefining legal definitions here that could have far reaching effects? Am I missing something here? Have I got this wrong?