BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[ContractIn]

here is another case DR highlighted last year which has been waiting for a judgement since July 2010.

Case Tracker for Civil Appeals

Anyone know what this one relates to? I see mummery is covering this as well.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Anyone know what this one relates to? I see mummery is covering this as well.

It involves a tax avoidance scheme.

[ContractIn]

It involves a tax avoidance scheme.

You would think that judgement would be served on this one first so will be interesting to see the outcome.

[TheBarCapBoyz]

I wonder what the longest ever amount of time was between a CoA hearing and the ruling being announced...

Myabe the doddery old judges just forgot about it.

[OnYourBikeGB]

I wonder what the longest ever amount of time was between a CoA hearing and the ruling being announced...

Myabe the doddery old judges just forgot about it.

I think even Leonardo would have been rightly stressed out by now. I'm still hoping it's a good sign. The way I look at it, the length of time favours neither side or favours us. I can't think of a circumstance where a prolonged period of consideration could solely be of benefit to Hector. If it was clear cut, then it would be over with. If the timescale is an indication of the complexity, then that's contrary to Parker who wasted no time, the best Hector can hope for is that after re-examining Parker's ruling, the judges will come down on their side after a very protracted examination of the rights or wrongs.

Maybe I'm grasping at straws, but I see a long delay as at least a sign that we are getting our argument considered properly for the first time. I know the PwC case is obviously adding to the delay, but the difference in the timescales between the JR and the COA must indicate that this is just not as clear cut as Parker believed.

[slogger]

I think even Leonardo would have been rightly stressed out by now. I'm still hoping it's a good sign. The way I look at it, the length of time favours neither side or favours us. I can't think of a circumstance where a prolonged period of consideration could solely be of benefit to Hector. If it was clear cut, then it would be over with. If the timescale is an indication of the complexity, then that's contrary to Parker who wasted no time, the best Hector can hope for is that after re-examining Parker's ruling, the judges will come down on their side after a very protracted examination of the rights or wrongs.

Maybe I'm grasping at straws, but I see a long delay as at least a sign that we are getting our argument considered properly for the first time. I know the PwC case is obviously adding to the delay, but the difference in the timescales between the JR and the COA must indicate that this is just not as clear cut as Parker believed.

I hope so - however we obviously care a great deal about this - I wonder if the judges do - possibly just one on a long list of things they have to do..

[johnnyguitar]

I think even Leonardo would have been rightly stressed out by now. I'm still hoping it's a good sign. The way I look at it, the length of time favours neither side or favours us. I can't think of a circumstance where a prolonged period of consideration could solely be of benefit to Hector. If it was clear cut, then it would be over with. If the timescale is an indication of the complexity, then that's contrary to Parker who wasted no time, the best Hector can hope for is that after re-examining Parker's ruling, the judges will come down on their side after a very protracted examination of the rights or wrongs.

Maybe I'm grasping at straws, but I see a long delay as at least a sign that we are getting our argument considered properly for the first time. I know the PwC case is obviously adding to the delay, but the difference in the timescales between the JR and the COA must indicate that this is just not as clear cut as Parker believed.

Whilst the long delay could mean that they are considering it properly (or could just be busy with something else?), I'm also a bit worried.
If they felt that it should be an HMRC win, maybe they're just trying to work out how they can 'cap' the ruling so that it doesn't open the floodgates of retrospection for everyone/everything.
To me, our case was always pretty straightforward, so I can't understand why it's taking them so long.

[smalldog]

i still wonder if its somehow linked to the budget.

The office of tax simplification have put forward their recommendation for son of IR35 and are expecting to announce it just prior to the budget. Maybe they are also considering our case...or maybe the judges are just very busy.

[Morlock]

i still wonder if its somehow linked to the budget.

The office of tax simplification have put forward their recommendation for son of IR35 and are expecting to announce it just prior to the budget. Maybe they are also considering our case...or maybe the judges are just very busy.

The OTS have published this morning:

http://www.pcg.org.uk/cms/documents/...m%20report.pdf

Highlights:
1) Scrap IR35
2) Merge income tax and national insurance (thus raising the headline rate of tax by about 10 percentage points (can't see the politicians going for that somehow))
3) Tax dividends and savings interest as if they are salary (another vote winner)

[screwthis]

The OTS have published this morning:

http://www.pcg.org.uk/cms/documents/...m%20report.pdf

Highlights:
1) Scrap IR35
2) Merge income tax and national insurance (thus raising the headline rate of tax by about 10 percentage points (can't see the politicians going for that somehow))
3) Tax dividends and savings interest as if they are salary (another vote winner)

So by simplification they mean give us more of your money and this is simpler because you always pay more no matter how you conduct your business.

Sounds like IR35 gives way to forced PAYE
Not really scrapping IR35 but making IR35 what they wanted it to be in the first place.

Clarification you might say....