BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[TheBarCapBoyz]

For information, although HM Treasury were unwilling to release the documents themselves under FOI, they did provide the list below. I have since been informed by HMT that the 5 legal opinions (15, 16, 17, 18 & 20) came from HMRC.



I currently have a complaint being investigated by the Information Commissioner's Office into HMT's refusal to release these documents.

If HM Treasury won't release these documents under FOI, can the MontP legal team not request them given their relevence to the case?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If HM Treasury won't release these documents under FOI, can the MontP legal team not request them given their relevence to the case?

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Legal advice between a lawyer and client is protected by Legal & Professional Privilege. Some of the other documents are covered by Ministerial privilege.

I believe Montpelier are going to ask the court to order the disclosure of documents but this may well be declined.

[Slobbo]

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Legal advice between a lawyer and client is protected by Legal & Professional Privilege. Some of the other documents are covered by Ministerial privilege.

I believe Montpelier are going to ask the court to order the disclosure of documents but this may well be declined.

How is it they can be declined when they could have a significant bearing on our case. How is that "Fair"? There is that word again "Fair".

Dictionary definition. - in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate : the group has achieved fair and equal representation for all its members.

Just looked at the hearing notes again and this struck me. The following statement contradicts the rest of the case.

"Nor did HMRC represent, expressly or even impliedly, that legal proceedings would first be pursued before the enactment of any legislation, or that any legislation would not have retrospective effect. In so far as taxpayers may have relied upon the route previously travelled by HMRC and the legislature in Padmore, they did so at their own election and risk."

Doesn't the whole thing hinge on precedent set in previous cases? If so how can the statement that we should not have relied on precedent set by HMRC in previous legislation be right. The only thing taxpayers have is precedent because HMRC don't tell you anything until it is too late.

[bollox]

letter sent

Bob Stuart - Conservative Beckenham

lets hope he's more interested than the previous incumbent who couldnt give a toss as far as i could tell !

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Just looked at the hearing notes again and this struck me. The following statement contradicts the rest of the case.

Personally, I'm entirely disregarding Parker's judgment.

If 3 senior judges in the Court of Appeal reach the same conclusions, then (and only then) will I start taking it seriously.

Incidentally, Montpelier are expecting the hearing to take place either in July, or after the summer recess in October.

[smalldog]

Personally, I'm entirely disregarding Parker's judgment.

If 3 senior judges in the Court of Appeal reach the same conclusions, then (and only then) will I start taking it seriously.

Incidentally, Montpelier are expecting the hearing to take place either in July, or after the summer recess in October.

my own personal view is either Parker shat himself over trying to make the decision so pushed it up the line, or he was got at....how can a judge not use the law to make a decision, which is what in essence parker did by trying to make a moral judgement.

[TAF4]

Personally, I'm entirely disregarding Parker's judgment.

If 3 senior judges in the Court of Appeal reach the same conclusions, then (and only then) will I start taking it seriously.

Parker's judgement contained a diverse range of proposals/arguments, some of them contradictory, designed to put us on a path to the Supreme Court. He was got at.

Moving on.

3 senior Judges ARE capable of fair and rational judgement, as shown by the Unite appeal, however I am prepared for us losing by 2 to 1. In that way the door will still be open for the Supreme Court hearing which will open up the question of when retrospection might legally be invoked.

Ultimately Hector WILL lose this one because the justification for retrospection is so weak.

My 2 cents.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

PwC have also been granted permission

I'm guessing that their case will be heard at the same time as our's but this has not been confirmed yet.

[seadog]

"If the Tax Tribunal decides the case in HMRC's favour, the law entitles HMRC to collect the disputed tax at that point – even if the taxpayer is pursuing an appeal to the Upper Tribunal or Higher Courts."

I didn't realise we were so exposed!!

grey

Hi Guys

Sorry to be so late in responding to this issue but I think I am right in saying that at the appeal, Singh (HMRC's QC) said that HMRC would not be enforcing collection until the end of the legal case which if it goes to Strasbourg could be another 4 years.

This is double edged sword, the longer to think about how to pay but possibly more interest. Hopefully as it drags on and the economy improves so will our ability to pay should it come to that.




:

[helen7]

This is double edged sword, the longer to think about how to pay but possibly more interest. Hopefully as it drags on and the economy improves so will our ability to pay should it come to that.
:

The way the pound is headed, in 4 years time the debt will be worthless anyway!!