BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Here is a man/woman who is clearly thinking.

We've all had nearly 3 years to explore options. Even if many of us were initially complacent, and I include myself in this category, what happened this time last year should have been a huge wakeup call.

We have no control over what the courts decide but in the worst case we can influence our ultimate fate.

Don't leave this "planning" to HMRC.

PSQM, I've been thinking since all this started and I'm not the only one. I just want to ensure that I understand as best I can what the options are if the worst happens. And whatever I think I know is little substitute for what the law demands. Hence why I've gone looking for Solicitors. The saving grace is that as a result, in the worst case, HMRC are not the Law and whether they like it or not, there is a process to follow and it is not a foregone conclusion of what rhetoric they spout automatically applies. To get you they too have to jump through various hoops. Not a reason to think we can get them if the worst happens. But as I said, HMRC cannot make you bankrupt. They cannot take your house just because they send you a letter threatening the same. And they most certainly cannot send round a qualification-free grunt and demand your telly. If they do, then you can read them the Riot Act and go after them. That would be a rather nice change.

I believe there is mileage in our legal case and will stand by the MontP case until there is evidence that it will fail. In the meantime, my Plan B is to get clued up on the actual legal position if all goes South. And I whilst I have friends who work in the legal space, I prefer to pay a couple of Solicitors to know what actually happens in practice.

I won't get peoples hopes up with a notion that there's a legal / Court mechanism to get off the hook here, but it is not a case of HMRC win and 2 days later the mob turn up and tell you and yours to live in a tent. But as I said, the notion that they would try that is actually appealing. The merry Hell that would rain down on them for such illegal actions would be priceless.

And to think that all this is about an estimated 200M (there's that number again) for a claimed debt that was known to HMRC for 6 years and only in 2008 did they propose that legislation from 20 years earlier needed clarification to show that what was legal and transparent now becomes illegal and evasive. If it wasn't for the fact that this is very real to people, it would seem like a joke. Not least since Padmore ensured that NOBODY was hit with a retrospective tax bill. Yeah, BN66 clarifies that then...

Anyways, knowing the rules that must be applied up front gives me sleep. And if the day comes when I need to consider how to take HMRC on for a demand of trillions then I'd sooner know now what can be done and how than in real time.

But before then, there is still a fight, a case and a legal position to be fought over. And all that comes before any rear guard action with Hector telling me he'll bankrupt me. Well matey, you cannot do that, only a Court can. And I'll make damned sure they know what happened to get me there and what I offered to "avoid" it -Tomlin Order, Voluntary Charge and all...

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

BTW

In the run up to the HC case, expectations were high. Parker's ruling was incredulous to many and for good reason. The fact that the ex-HMRC Parker implied that the Scheme may indeed have been legal and that Padmore may in fact not apply or the fact (lost on Parker) that long before the Disclosure Regime was introduced the Scheme was fully disclosed carred little weight for Parker in declining the JR.

Can HMRC apply retrospective laws on tax? Well it seems so in this case according to Parker. Legitimate expectation? Pah! Consistency? Pah! Transparency? Who cares? Padmore? Padmore what?

Can 6 years of HMRC saying that the Scheme didn't work for any reason other than what BN66 applies now be considered as "fair"? Hmmm. The fact is that HMRC knew the Scheme was legal and they didn't like that but had no way of defeating it. So after 6 years of saying that it didn't work for reason X (never proved or submiited to a Court) they then claim that reason Y applies yet the outcome is the opposite.

Part of me says that if the legal challenge to BN66 fails, then I'd have a field day in Court if HMRC filed for bankruptcy. And I'd quote Parker "let sleeping dogs lie" was his statement about carrying on with the Scheme. What? Telling HMRC every year what you where doing and why can be described as that? Quoting the DTA each year and never once having that referred to until BN66 doesn't smell off?

So if it comes to it and the case is lost and Hector files for bankruptcy, each of us can have our day in court and lay bare the events that brought us there. Might not achieve anything. But the idea of challenging an HMRC driven BO request in Court with the history and application of legal solutions to avoid such actions would be worth it.

So before anyone thinks that if we lose the current legal case we're doomed, think again. Depends on what each of us wants but there's a final roll of the dice that a Court cannot turn away from if we end up in that position. May not change the outcome but personally I'd take the chance via legal eagles to have HMRC explain themselves to me personally before a Court in order to make me bankrupt. And I'd ask the local media to be on hand for the ruling. If done right, won't make for an easy ride.

But there is a fight to be had.HMRC went after MontP and the IOM Courts were non too pleased to say the least. HMRC are not God. And they don't have the sway to do whatever they please. That's why we have the Judiciary. Just hope it works as it should in this current case. And if not, then HMRC will still have to go before it if bankruptcy is chosen. Then we all do have our day in Court if we so choose.

[Freelancer]

Story headline "Tax firm to sue over police raid"

The full text of the article that has appeared in the In the Isle of Man Manx Independent Newspaper Jan 14, 2011 is as follows:-
Search warrants used in a raid on the offices of an island tax consultancy have been declared unlawful following a successful High Court challenge.
All materials seized by the police from Montpelier Tax Consultants now have to be returned and the firm says it will sue for substantial damages.
The Attorney General's Chambers have accepted there had been a technical problem with the warrants.
Officers from the Financial Crime Unit executed search warrants on September 29 at premises connected with Montpelier Tax Consultants, based at Fernleigh House, Palace Road, Douglas.
Similar raids took place in teh UKas part of a joint police and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs investigation into suspected fraudulent tax avoidance schemes.
There were no arrests made in the island but documents were seized.
One arrest was made in the UK.
But at a High Court hearing in Douglas on Monday, the search warrant used by the police to enter and search the offices of Montpelier Tax Consultants and Montpelier Trust Company was quashed and the search and entry declared unlawful.
All material seized must now be returned and the Constabulary has agreed to pay Montpelier's legal costs.
In a statement, Montpelier said it believed it had been totally vindicated in its challenge to the issue of the warrant.
It described the HMRC's investigation into four of the company's tax plans for its UK clients as 'misconceived' and said that the seeking of a search warrant in the Isle of Man by HMRC was 'heavy-handed and wholly inappropriate'.
Montpelier said it was 'particularly disappointed' that the Isle of Man Government should permit HMRC officers to be sworn in as Isle of Man Special Constables for a day and then leave.
It claimed the highly publicised search of the Isle of MAn offices had severely damaged the business of Montpelier, resulting in more than 40 compulsory redundancies before Christmas.
'Montpelier will now pursue a claim for substantial damages for the unlawful entry, search and seizure',the statement added.
In a statement, the Financial Crime Unit said: 'The Isle of Man Constabulary was directed to assist HMRC by Her Majesty's Attorney Generals Chambers following a Letter of Request being received under the island's Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties.
'Using powers made available under these treaties, and under the terms of warrants issued by a Deemster in the High Court of the Isle of Man, officers from the Isle of Man Constabulary, accompanied by officers from HMRC, made a number of searches and seized various items.
'The legality of these searches was later challenged and the Constabulary believes that the Attorney General has accepted that there were technical problems with the assistance provided'.
End.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Thanks Freelancer.

I wonder what "there were technical problems with the assistance provided [to HMRC]" really means?

[Freelancer]

Thanks Freelancer.

I wonder what "there were technical problems with the assistance provided [to HMRC]" really means?

"the truth will out"

[portseven]

I would love to see HMRC taken to the cleaners by each of those 40 people who were made redundant by their actions on Montpelier. I think they should each sue for £5M each, a nice round number....

[centurian]

Thanks Freelancer.

I wonder what "there were technical problems with the assistance provided [to HMRC]" really means?

Probably that they shouldn't have been there in the first place... making them plods for a day would also be high on the list.

[Toocan]

I wonder what "there were technical problems with the assistance provided [to HMRC]" really means?

It means that IoM authorities though that they could trust their HMRC partners - but now they realise that HMRC are not very good at Trusts and have a lot of difficulty in deciding who Partners are.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

It means that IoM authorities though that they could trust their HMRC partners - but now they realise that HMRC are not very good at Trusts and have a lot of difficulty in deciding who Partners are.

[theywontbreakme]

HMRC v Rooney

I wonder how far HMRC will get with this case?....

Top footballers like Wayne Rooney dodge millions in tax by cashing in on loophole | Mail Online