BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Advertise

If you want people to know what you think about all of this, why not get a private number plate?

I suggest BN66 F*K. And I think you know the letter to replace *

[ContractIn]

Mayes v The Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs - result

Anyone know how to find out the case result, or know the result. I couldn't see a link?

Case Tracker for Civil Appeals

[TalkingCheese]

Anyone know how to find out the case result, or know the result. I couldn't see a link?

Case Tracker for Civil Appeals

Looks like their permission to appeal has been refused.

[Leyther70]

Anyone know how to find out the case result, or know the result. I couldn't see a link?

Case Tracker for Civil Appeals

Case Tracker for Civil Appeals

Result says : Refused

Which having delved a bit deeper I think means Hector lost :-) as the original decision went in favour of Mayes

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Case Tracker for Civil Appeals

Result says : Refused

Which having delved a bit deeper I think means Hector lost :-) as the original decision went in favour of Mayes

Full transcript of the judgment here:

Revenue & Customs v Mayes [2011] EWCA Civ 407 (12 April 2011)

Interestingly, Mummery was the senior judge as in our case.

[ContractIn]

Full transcript of the judgment here:

Revenue & Customs v Mayes [2011] EWCA Civ 407 (12 April 2011)

Interestingly, Mummery was the senior judge as in our case.

This is why I am interested! So HMRC lost their appeal?

Can we take any positivity from this ruling?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

This is why I am interested! So HMRC lost their appeal?

Can we take any positivity from this ruling?

Not especially, since the CoA merely upheld the judgment of the High Court.

I've no idea why it took almost 9 months for them to reach this decision.

PS. by the way, there were 2 appeals. One by HMRC and one by Mayes. Both were refused.

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/l...o?search=mayes

[smalldog]

sorry why is any of this relevant to us?

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Point 14 is worthy of note:

"HMRC persuaded the Special Commissioner that SHIPS 2 did not succeed. (If it did, about £24m would be lost in tax, though that fact is irrelevant to the point of law.)"

What does that say about the claims from Timms and Co about 200M being at risk to the Exchequer? I would interpret the above as meaning the scale of a claim has nothing to do with the legal relevance.

Read point 17. Mummery tells it straight as to the role of the courts in tax disputes. Interpret it as you will.

The very last 2 paras are worth considering when comparing this case to ours:

"In the present case it has not been suggested that the payment of premium followed shortly by a surrender of the bonds were a sham. As Mummery LJ has said, they were legal events with legal consequences. They were events which ICTA has caused to carry fiscal consequences. The particular consequences in the present case were obviously not foreseen or intended by the legislature; but legislation, especially legislation which is highly engineered, can have unintended consequences.

Unattractive as the result is for other taxpayers and the rest of society, I agree with Proudman J and Mummery LJ that the court cannot lawfully hold, as a matter of proper construction of the statute, that because the sole purpose of steps 3 and 4 was to avoid tax by the creation of a corresponding deficiency unrelated to any underlying commercial loss, those events are therefore to be treated as if they had not occurred."

This says to me that even one LJ who was not keen on ruling in favour of tax avoidance, found that he had to on legal grounds.

[deckster]

Interesting note at the end of the judgement:

In the present case it has not been suggested that the payment of premium followed shortly by a surrender of the bonds were a sham. As Mummery LJ has said, they were legal events with legal consequences. They were events which ICTA has caused to carry fiscal consequences. The particular consequences in the present case were obviously not foreseen or intended by the legislature; but legislation, especially legislation which is highly engineered, can have unintended consequences.

Unattractive as the result is for other taxpayers and the rest of society, I agree with Proudman J and Mummery LJ that the court cannot lawfully hold, as a matter of proper construction of the statute, that because the sole purpose of steps 3 and 4 was to avoid tax by the creation of a corresponding deficiency unrelated to any underlying commercial loss, those events are therefore to be treated as if they had not occurred.

Ultimately irrelevant to our case, as the effectiveness or otherwise of the scheme is not what is under consideration, but at the very least an encouraging return to the 'letter' rather than the 'spirit' of the law.