BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[smalldog]

A future fair for all


Errr, there's that word again "fair" and oddly the other word "all".

Well according to the dictionary, I form part of "all". Can't quite marry the 2 together when you look at BN66. But at least it's prospective via the word "future". Rather hypocritical me thinks.

Perhaps the Tories could have their slogan saying:

A past unfair for many

TSBT but if you can be retrospective you can go back in time and change what the idea and concept of future means. For example, the future for me ten years ago differs to what it is now, as Nu Labour and Lurch have a new founded time travel machine endorsed by a high court judge!, they can effectively go back ten years and reprogramme my idea of what the future could be and can align it with what they think it should be today in their view so I dont end up dissappointed....all very cunning...

[Toocan]

The Official Receiver will have seen every trick in the book so it's pointless even trying.

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/freedom...rt2/part_2.htm

33.48 Property in the sole name of spouse, civil partner or cohabitant

Where the property is in the sole name of a spouse, civil partner or cohabitant of the bankrupt, the official receiver should consider the possibility that the property has been transferred into the spouse’s, civil partner’s or cohabitant’s sole name or was purchased with funds provided by the bankrupt with a view to defeating his/her creditors. Such transactions may be set aside (see paragraphs 33.119 to 33.125). Where the official receiver is satisfied that the bankrupt did not provide purchase monies, he/she should make enquiries to ascertain whether the bankrupt has acquired a beneficial interest in the property, for example, by making mortgage repayments, contributing to household expenses etc. The guidance in paragraph 33.52 should be considered in this respect.

I understand and indeed believe it to be practical to be considering all options – and that includes asset protection in its various forms. Indeed, this is something that wealthy people routinely consider. It’s worth considering that sentence because “defeating his/her creditors” is not the only reason to practice asset protection.

Motivations vary for most things in life – some people used the scheme discussed here to avoid tax, but others used it for other reasons – that’s not something that appears to have crossed the minds of certain people. But, in time, it will.

I think we need something of a mindset shift – we are at the start of the legal process – not the end. We need to focus on defeating HMRC’s attempts to tax us where they have no power to do so. Look into all options, by all means, but that is something that could only occur at the end of this process – we are literally years from that (should that occur).

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Look into all options, by all means, but that is something that could only occur at the end of this process – we are literally years from that (should that occur).

You know that, and I know that. But I'm not sure many people are ready to truly believe that this will go on for years.

And it is this which causes panic at every setback.

I get a lot of emails from people asking:

What if our application to the CoA gets rejected?
What if it goes to an oral hearing and that is also refused?
What if...
What if...
What if...

If people could begin to accept that this process could take at least 5 years then I think they could relax a bit. It is the constant uncertainty which raises the stress levels.

Unfortunately, Montpelier can't give us a definitive roadmap of how this is going to pan out because it depends.

They have committed to taking it all the way to ECtHR. They have "Plan Bs" ready if the Human Rights argument does not succeed.

They want to win this as much as we do and will leave no stone unturned in order to achieve this.

What more can we ask?

[CharteredTaxAdviser]

Agree with DonkeyR

I agree.

The case will take several years typically. Its likely to go more quickly as my HMRC insiders are saying that they want to pursue this quickly.

You have to consider another scenario ladies and gents that should HMRC lose ultimately, then its VERY likely they will legislate again....

What I can positively say is that I personally know 3 QC's in prestigious London Chambers who are all engaged on various matters around this case. They are in addition to the ones that DonkeyR states at the top of this thread...

[BolshieBastard]

I agree.

The case will take several years typically. Its likely to go more quickly as my HMRC insiders are saying that they want to pursue this quickly.

You have to consider another scenario ladies and gents that should HMRC lose ultimately, then its VERY likely they will legislate again....

What I can positively say is that I personally know 3 QC's in prestigious London Chambers who are all engaged on various matters around this case. They are in addition to the ones that DonkeyR states at the top of this thread...

These 3 QC's are working for HMRC?

I've no doubt this will go on for a number of years yet, hence my initial reaction to settle but then take out a CTD instead. I'll also make provision when I find another contract, to take out some form of savings plan to cover the interest Im said to owe.

But, I've also no doubt that since HMRC have used retrospective legislation once, they'll ask for it again if they are defeated. One sliver of hope in this respect is that a change of government may thwart them in this pursuit although I wouldnt gaurantee that.

[smalldog]

These 3 QC's are working for HMRC?

I've no doubt this will go on for a number of years yet, hence my initial reaction to settle but then take out a CTD instead. I'll also make provision when I find another contract, to take out some form of savings plan to cover the interest Im said to owe.

But, I've also no doubt that since HMRC have used retrospective legislation once, they'll ask for it again if they are defeated. One sliver of hope in this respect is that a change of government may thwart them in this pursuit although I wouldnt gaurantee that.

BB, I doubt if they were working for HMRC he would have used the word positively, i hope!

[BolshieBastard]

BB, I doubt if they were working for HMRC he would have used the word positively, i hope!

I read 'positively' in the post as 'definitely' rather than working for one side or the other. Hence the request for clarification.

I hope Im wrong but I read it that the 3 QC's are working from hMRC's perspective.

[PlaneSailing]

I agree.

The case will take several years typically. Its likely to go more quickly as my HMRC insiders are saying that they want to pursue this quickly.

You have to consider another scenario ladies and gents that should HMRC lose ultimately, then its VERY likely they will legislate again....

What I can positively say is that I personally know 3 QC's in prestigious London Chambers who are all engaged on various matters around this case. They are in addition to the ones that DonkeyR states at the top of this thread...

HMRC insiders want to pursue this quickly? They've had since
2002. Why the sudden rush?

[silver_lining]

I agree.

The case will take several years typically. Its likely to go more quickly as my HMRC insiders are saying that they want to pursue this quickly.

You have to consider another scenario ladies and gents that should HMRC lose ultimately, then its VERY likely they will legislate again....

What I can positively say is that I personally know 3 QC's in prestigious London Chambers who are all engaged on various matters around this case. They are in addition to the ones that DonkeyR states at the top of this thread...

do you need a handle to assist you ?

[smalldog]

HMRC insiders want to pursue this quickly? They've had since
2002. Why the sudden rush?

the sudden rush is to get this monkey off their back asap, this legislation is bad press in anyones book including HMRC and its too close to lots of other tax related debates. Sooner they close this the sooner they can bury it in the archives and get it off peoples minds..they also probably want to resolve it prior to having a new paymaster in the tories scrutinising their every move, they will be fully aware the tories didnt agree with this in principle.