BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[PlaneSailing]

This was conveyed to me by someone who was present.

Summary
The three Judges decided to defer a decision on whether the case should go ahead until after the Montpelier application to the CoA has been decided. They feel that the two cases should be brought together from a "case management" point of view.

Highlights

• HMRC turned up mob handed as usual
• Singh was the lead QC again but they also had 2 other barristers
• Singh tried to argue that there was no case to answer because the claimant had not received a formal tax demand but the Judges were having none of it
• Singh was very uncomfortable throughout, and at times stuttering and squirming. He couldn't answer a lot of the Judge's questions, even after conferring with HMRC on a number of occasions
• The Judges were very positive towards PwC's case (although we've seen this before)

Wasn't the last argument that we should have demanded CNs (despite
the fact litigation was underway)???? Consistent only in their inconsistency.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Wasn't the last argument that we should have demanded CNs (despite
the fact litigation was underway)???? Consistent only in their inconsistency.

I think it is highly suspicious that HMRC have still not issued CNs to the PwC claimant 20 months after s58 received royal assent.

To me this looks like a deliberate attempt to try and prevent the proceedings going ahead.

They really are devious bastards.

[PlaneSailing]

I think it is highly suspicious that HMRC have still not issued CNs to the PwC claimant 20 months after s58 received royal assent.

To me this looks like a deliberate attempt to try and prevent the proceedings going ahead.

They really are devious bastards.

Then, according to Mr Parker, they should request them right away!

[Slobbo]

I think it is highly suspicious that HMRC have still not issued CNs to the PwC claimant 20 months after s58 received royal assent.

To me this looks like a deliberate attempt to try and prevent the proceedings going ahead.

They really are devious bastards.

My thoughts exactly. What's the bet they are sitting on the bastards desk stamped and ready to go waiting until after the hearing.

[Emigre]

My thoughts exactly. What's the bet they are sitting on the bastards desk stamped and ready to go waiting until after the hearing.

What's this word "bastards"? There's a far better one a little further down the dictionary...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Then, according to Mr Parker, they should request them right away!

If they had requested CNs then it could be construed that the claimants were expressing a desire to go to tribunal (commissioners), which would be playing right into HMRC's hands.

Singh argued this today that the right place to decide the case was at a tribunal, not the Court of Appeal.

[smalldog]

two are mightier than one

Im assuming as the cases will be combined then we are going to have two sets of lawyers fighting in the same courtroom against HMRC?! I think that can surely only be a positive, bit like tag team wrestling Dickie Davies style!

WE can get them in a pincer move

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

If they had requested CNs then it could be construed that the claimants were expressing a desire to go to tribunal (commissioners), which would be playing right into HMRC's hands.

Singh argued this today that the right place to decide the case was at a tribunal, not the Court of Appeal.

DR, something puzzles me. If HMRC believe that this should be decided at a tribunal, then why did they drop that avenue in our case re the 4 test cases?

So as for the CN's, if it was playing into HMRC's hands then I can't see why HMRC would not have taken the 4 test cases to the SC.

1+1 should equal 2 but it doesn't appear so in this case(s).

They can't have their cake and eat it.

It would be interesting to see how MTM and PwC are addressed together over this in court. On the one hand Parker considered that going to the SC was an option (even though that was where we were heading before BN66), then today Singh implies that this is where this matter should be taken.

I might be over simplifying things, but wasn't TE63 about the risk of not winning such a case?

It seems to me that HMRC are backing themselves into a corner if this element holds water.

No wonder morale is low at HMRC (I note the close relationship to the word morality in this).

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

One question that I don't have an answer to is this. Based on HMRC testimony at our JR hearing, it was in late 2007 that HMRC revisted the 1987 legislation and from that point they formed the BN66 position.

What made them revisit it in 2007 after almost 7 years of never referring to it even though it had always been known to them?

Something significant I'd assume.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

One question that I don't have an answer to is this. Based on HMRC testimony at our JR hearing, it was in late 2007 that HMRC revisted the 1987 legislation and from that point they formed the BN66 position.

What made them revisit it in 2007 after almost 7 years of never referring to it even though it had always been known to them?

Something significant I'd assume.

I think it went something like this...

Oh s**t, someone has just made a claim for £60M and there are loads more people jumping on this double tax bandwagon.

Guys, we're up the creek. What the f**k can we do to avoid them getting away with this? We're going to look like such a bunch of useless tossers if we go to the Treasury and just ask them to close this down, pissing away several hundred £million.

How about retrospective legislation? That would save our bacon and screw those bloody contractors at the same time.

Do it. We'll worry about any consequences later.

Anyone disagree?