BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[BolshieBastard]

Your punctuation and attitude stink.

Wow! A real cyber warrior at work here, chaps?

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Take a deep breathe

All,

Today went against us. We lost. PwC lost. It appears to me that it's the HC all over again. However, consider this:

When we all joined the MP scheme they stated they would take it to the HoL. That is what I read they will do (via the SC). It was always going to end up there. Sure, it would have been easier on all of us if we had won today. But the SC is where this was always heading and we knew it. So the notion of some negotiated settlement being discussed a couple of hours after this ruling is perhaps a discussion later on.

Consider the actual facts and some pointed out by the MP statement:

HMRC have confirmed in open court that they will not enforce collection whilst the legal process is engaged. So any attempt by them to collect at this point is not possible.

As I said a while back, I believed this would get acted out in the SC by the end of 2012. This now seems possible.

If we (and PwC) lose at the SC, HMRC have confirmed that CN's are suspended pending the outcome of the legal process. This suspension is on the APPEAL of the CN's not the CN's themselves. So even a loss at the SC does not mean HMRC come calling since your CN appeal can then go ahead.
MP are stating what they always stated they would do. I cannot criticise that stance.

If you think the CoA rulings are without criticism consider this:

PwC ruling (paragraph 5) - CoA agree to use the legislation in force at the material time rather than relying on subsequent modified legislation. If so applied in our case, does that not also mean by doing the same and remaining consistent across both cases, then applying the law as it was at the material time (pre BN66) would give rise to a different conclusion? That is, apply the law as it was rather than after it changed retrospectively. A massive CoA own goal IMO.

I don't consider our future as a one trick pony. It's early days and there is time to reflect. And I doubt all of us here have spent the last few months just waiting on the CoA. What is seen above the water does not always translate to what is happening under the water.

[nuffsaid]

In agreement with TSBT...

Whilst it would have been nice to have the Judges "on our side", nothing has actually changed.
The only thing decided by today's outcome is that it is 'us' raising the appeal rather than the HMRC.

We never was going to win OR lose the BN66 battle today, it was always going to be followed by a trip to the SC and/or ECHR.
18 months ago it was predicted to take 3 to 5 years and we're still on track.

[craig1]

All,
HMRC have confirmed in open court that they will not enforce collection whilst the legal process is engaged. So any attempt by them to collect at this point is not possible.

Although I have nothing to do with this case or those involved I hope you lot don't mind a question that might seem a bit daft. Has anyone applied to the court to ask for an interim judgement getting HMRC interest "frozen" or reduced to inflationary only pending the outcome of appeals? As I understand it, the interest just keeps building and if there's an adverse final verdict this will substantially add to the eventual HMRC pay-day.

[Emigre]

Although I have nothing to do with this case or those involved I hope you lot don't mind a question that might seem a bit daft. Has anyone applied to the court to ask for an interim judgement getting HMRC interest "frozen" or reduced to inflationary only pending the outcome of appeals? As I understand it, the interest just keeps building and if there's an adverse final verdict this will substantially add to the eventual HMRC pay-day.

Good of you to stop by. Its a very good question. The answer is that as far as I'm aware there has been attempt to get the interest frozen. However, if we finally lose, I think there would be a strong case to ask the Court to not allow interest prior to the date that the law changed (21 July 2008).

One of the disengenuous features of this case is that the efficacy of the scheme has been ignored in Court during which period HMRC made no real representations as to why it did not work - those they did make were in fact wrong, and their own internal opinions indicated that it did work. It is therefore fundamentally wrong for them to be able to apply interest to a debt that did not exist at the time.

There are no penalties being levied and so I think (hope!) in the worst case that the interest will be able to be waived for at least part of it.

[SantaClaus]

Although I have nothing to do with this case or those involved I hope you lot don't mind a question that might seem a bit daft. Has anyone applied to the court to ask for an interim judgement getting HMRC interest "frozen" or reduced to inflationary only pending the outcome of appeals? As I understand it, the interest just keeps building and if there's an adverse final verdict this will substantially add to the eventual HMRC pay-day.

Very good point Craig, and something that has been on my mind too.

[nick4notax]

Unbelievable

It may well be just one more case against us en-route to Strasbourg etc etc, but it still beggars belief no only that we've lost but the reasons why we've lost. Perhaps we should all be writing to our MPs again, if only to keep this balls-up (no pun intended to that t0sser Ed) in their minds...

[johnnyguitar]

layman's interpretation

having (quickly) read through the judgement, my take is this:

1. retrospection, in this case, is OK because it is for the greater good.

2. we can't complain about the individual effects of the legislation because we knew it was a 'risky' scheme and HMRC kept telling/warning us they didn't like it.

--->
1. Not sure how we can change their mind about this given that 4 judges have agreed, what new angle do we have to change the mind of the SC?

2. in some ways, not an invalid point - although I appreciate they never demonstrated how it didn't work - but there were warnings. Unfortunately, those warnings were never passed on to me and I would have acted differently had I known.
Is there not a case, that HMRC should have communicated its concerns to each individual, as soon as it received each tax return ?
Or was the onus on Montpelier.
Either way, I feel that someone should have pointed out that the scheme was a little shaky.

Montpelier's continued optimism is great, but we've been hearing that for a long time now, and I would like a little more information and support rather than them just saying' this is wrong, we will continue to appeal' - my confidence has been dented today.

[petergw]

Good of you to stop by. Its a very good question. The answer is that as far as I'm aware there has been attempt to get the interest frozen. However, if we finally lose, I think there would be a strong case to ask the Court to not allow interest prior to the date that the law changed (21 July 2008).

One of the disengenuous features of this case is that the efficacy of the scheme has been ignored in Court during which period HMRC made no real representations as to why it did not work - those they did make were in fact wrong, and their own internal opinions indicated that it did work. It is therefore fundamentally wrong for them to be able to apply interest to a debt that did not exist at the time.

There are no penalties being levied and so I think (hope!) in the worst case that the interest will be able to be waived for at least part of it.

Extremely good point Emigre! Just to show how long this whole thing has been going on, when I tried to logon today, I was getting a userid/password problem, so have now reregistered !!
This WHOLE thing is just SO WRONG!!! - but I think that we are really up against it - but that is just a personal opinion...
I can sympathise with the camp that wants to 'carry on' and can also see where those taht 'want to deal' are coming from!

Me, I am just too stunned to give it any meaningful thought at this stage!

Certainly agree though, that there must be a strong case for just repaying the capital, WITHOUT SURCHARGES and INTEREST...

Just turned 60, and I never ever thought that I would still be working, never mind have a HUGE tax demand hanging over my head!!!

Good luck to everyone.....

[johnnyguitar]

Good of you to stop by. Its a very good question. The answer is that as far as I'm aware there has been attempt to get the interest frozen. However, if we finally lose, I think there would be a strong case to ask the Court to not allow interest prior to the date that the law changed (21 July 2008).

One of the disengenuous features of this case is that the efficacy of the scheme has been ignored in Court during which period HMRC made no real representations as to why it did not work - those they did make were in fact wrong, and their own internal opinions indicated that it did work. It is therefore fundamentally wrong for them to be able to apply interest to a debt that did not exist at the time.

There are no penalties being levied and so I think (hope!) in the worst case that the interest will be able to be waived for at least part of it.

following on from my previous post - it would be good to hear Montpelier's view on this too - as it could make a big difference.
As would a cooment on those seeking to make a potential deal.
Clear options would be good to hear right now.