BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[smalldog]

Do we know where we go next if we lose?

Does it just go away if we win?

I know it is not that simple but any ideas?

Depending on MP's appetite supreme court if we lose this round, if we win all likelihood HMRC will take it to Supreme court. If MP dont want to take it to supreme court then I dont know what we then do.

DR you are quite close to MP do you know their feelings on this??

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Another NI Breaking News Headline

Judgment day is upon us.

Court of Appeal Civil Division

NOTICE
Take notice that on MONDAY, 25 JULY, 2011 in COURT 70, at 10 O'CLOCK, Judgment will be given in the following.
APPEALS
From The Queen's Bench Division
(Administrative Court and Divisional Court)
FINAL DECISIONS
C1/2010/0360 The Queen on the application of Huitson -v- Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.
C1/2009/1224 Queen on the Application of Shiner & anr -v- Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs.

Well I guess it was apt that DR broke the news on this NI "scandal". No, not the alledged News International one but a tax matter (OK, not just NI but Income Tax too, but I needed an angle).

Seems apt that this comes now. Whatever the ruling, I for one am happy that we get the CoA Judgement handed down now. Win or lose here it means no more guessing over what remains of the "Summer" as to how it will go.

But, and I really mean this, whether we win or lose is not the whole point. It is what the ruling SAYS that counts. And lets not forget that we're not the only body of people being ruled on here.

Whether we win or lose, the Supreme Court lies ahead and that will be some time away yet.

So if on Monday we lose, don't just drop your heads and think "that's it". Because it is not. And if we win, don't think "we got the b*stards". We won't.

For those who remember the aftermath of "Parkergate", there was all Hell breaking loose here for a while. It might be the same come Monday. But, try to remember that the CoA either way is not the end of the road.

DR named this updated Forum "Round 2". That's not the same as "Final Round". We all wanted our day in court. Not this one for sure and if TE63 is anything to go by, nor did HMRC.

But the wait is nearly over for this phase of what for many has been a nightmare.

So I suggest this. Whatever the ruling come Monday, refrain from gloating if we win or recriminasions if we lose. Don't despair if the ruling ruins Summer or brings a false sunny dawn when black clouds lay on the horizon. But consider this:

Whatever the outcome of the CoA, we are not done, the case is not over, the battle will continue and there is a fight still going on. Come Monday, take a breath, think and then consider where this leaves us. After all, whilst you might be looking into the abyss on Monday if we lose, you'll be one of 3,000 others doing the same - or not - as I for one will be wanting to get hold of the CoA minutes, read and digest what was said and ruled upon, take a G&T break then look forward to what we are faced with next. Not easy I agree and almost impossible for many. But there is no turning back and for me no turning my back.

Good luck to us all and without reservation many thanks to DR and others who assured our presence here so that we would not simply go away. That takes courage and determination. And I remain determined.

[cojak]

DR named this updated Forum "Round 2" .

DR named this thread "Round 2".

But Good Luck everyone.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

When we got the judgment in the High Court last year there was understandably a lot of panic.

If the result on Monday is not what we want, let's try to keep calm and collected.

Whatever happens this is not the end.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Personally, I just want to know. I'm grateful that the judges have taken their time and deliberated. This is the first time we will get an idea of where we stand, Parker was a farce. This has been a strain in my life for so many years, win or lose, it has already had a price. To know how three senior judges think will be a defining moment in our fight fir what is right. When we are subjected to a daily barrage of cosiness between a Government supported tax avoiding News Corporation, that has abused the freedoms they claim to support, the revelations about HMRC excusing the excesses of the banking industry and turning a blind eye to their tax avoidance, I have got to believe that there is still room for the openness and honesty that we have always displayed. We're little people, but lose or win, we fought them. Thanks as always DR. Now let's see who's standing.

[silver_lining]

lock and load - good luck everyone, including me !

Interestingly enough, when do MPs brief actually get the decision, I assume it is in advance of Monday......?

Can MP spare us the journey to RCJ if its bad or encourage us to bring champs if its good ?

[geoff from contracta IOM]

Good luck everyone of you, this will be a very important decision for all of you who have endured the misery of this debacle and I hope the LJ's uphold what I believe is a fundamental principle of our entire legal system.

[Emigre]

One day closer...

The Parker hearing as TSBT said was a farce; we simply did not have our voices or our side of the argument considered. The CoA heard what we had to say and has spent a considerable length of time deliberating over the value of what we had to say, countered by HMRC.

It is extremely unlikely that either side will get a straight win on all counts, if that were the case we would have heard the decision far sooner.

Remember too that we actually have two cracks at this on Monday.

Firstly, Huitson's challenge on the Human Rights angle where an outright win to either side would make retrospection either wholly acceptable or wholly unacceptable. Whilst I deplore the concept of retrospective tax legislation I can see circumstances where i could be absolutely necessary, whilst making it wholly acceptable, even given the "wide margin of appreciation" available to Member States on tax matters, could never realistically sit comfortably within the HR framework.

Secondly, Shiner's challenge is against the free movement of capital. This is a right enshrined in the very core of EU principles. It is actually quite difficult to see how these rights and principles can be disapplied in our case.

I'm not looking to be "lucky" on Monday - I buy a lottery ticket if I feel lucky. I'm looking for something that is fair, something that demonstrates that the UK legal system isn't muddied by Government intervention or leveraged by dodgy Sunday papers, something that demonstrates that the UK is a good, fair and certain place to do business. I personally think it will be extremely difficult for the LJs to deliver something that cuts a path through the middle and delivers these sentiments.

There is no doubt in my mind that we have been treated both badly and inconsistently with the treatment afforded to other groups of taxpayers; there is every indication that as a group we have been singled out for the retrospective hit. Other schemes before and since have only been addressed prospectively. We have been treated little better than tax evaders and yet we broke no laws.

My faith lies in the judiciary, and i'm sure they will give us something to take home next week but, again as TSBT said, it may well be deep within the wording of the LJs decisions. Sadly, initially at least, I suspect that we will get most information from any press release by either side following Monday's handing down.

[shrek]

The Parker hearing as TSBT said was a farce; we simply did not have our voices or our side of the argument considered. The CoA heard what we had to say and has spent a considerable length of time deliberating over the value of what we had to say, countered by HMRC.

It is extremely unlikely that either side will get a straight win on all counts, if that were the case we would have heard the decision far sooner.

Remember too that we actually have two cracks at this on Monday.

Firstly, Huitson's challenge on the Human Rights angle where an outright win to either side would make retrospection either wholly acceptable or wholly unacceptable. Whilst I deplore the concept of retrospective tax legislation I can see circumstances where i could be absolutely necessary, whilst making it wholly acceptable, even given the "wide margin of appreciation" available to Member States on tax matters, could never realistically sit comfortably within the HR framework.

Secondly, Shiner's challenge is against the free movement of capital. This is a right enshrined in the very core of EU principles. It is actually quite difficult to see how these rights and principles can be disapplied in our case.

I'm not looking to be "lucky" on Monday - I buy a lottery ticket if I feel lucky. I'm looking for something that is fair, something that demonstrates that the UK legal system isn't muddied by Government intervention or leveraged by dodgy Sunday papers, something that demonstrates that the UK is a good, fair and certain place to do business. I personally think it will be extremely difficult for the LJs to deliver something that cuts a path through the middle and delivers these sentiments.

There is no doubt in my mind that we have been treated both badly and inconsistently with the treatment afforded to other groups of taxpayers; there is every indication that as a group we have been singled out for the retrospective hit. Other schemes before and since have only been addressed prospectively. We have been treated little better than tax evaders and yet we broke no laws.

My faith lies in the judiciary, and i'm sure they will give us something to take home next week but, again as TSBT said, it may well be deep within the wording of the LJs decisions. Sadly, initially at least, I suspect that we will get most information from any press release by either side following Monday's handing down.

here here

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Montpelier have agreed to provide me with a statement on Monday, after the hearing is handed down, to post on the forum.

Obviously the primary concern is what happens next if the judges rule against us and PwC.