BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[BolshieBastard]

Following on from this, I've had a response from my local tax office. They have sent 2 letters for 2 years worth.

However, I've got potential liability for 4 years.

Need to understand what it is I've been sent versus what I'm missing I guess.

So have I from the man himself. I wont say how many 'letters' or 'letter' I received as this may help some hmrc 'troll' identify me with all other stuff I have posted.

I'll be keeping them as records though.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Not got the letters to hand but do remember them mentioning Section 9a TMA 1970.

I'm hoping that means that since they only sent me 2 letters that they didn't do this for the other 2 years. How will I know? Or do I just right back repeating the original point - no enquiry letter, CN not valid please remove.

I would write back and request proof that they opened enquiries into the 2 other years.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Maybe if MP had kept it to the first 500 users it would still be going now?

Wouldn't have made a jot of difference. Other promoters eg. Steed & deGraaf would have filled the gap.

In any case, it is clear from HMRC witness statements that there were other factors which stirred the slumbering beast:

1) a property developer filing a claim for relief on £60M

2) a new promoter offering the scheme to temporary carehome staff and agency nurses

[OnYourBikeGB]

In retrospect, had the scheme been brought before the Special Commissioners, I suspect we would be in a happier place. HMRC spent seven years doing nothing other than sending meaningless threats to us and MTM, until the law was ahem "clarified" and supplied them with their first weapon with which to attack.

Let's not forget that HMRC quoted the case law that they said we fell foul off, years before all the retro-bollox. Of course, they got it wrong, and actually quoted a case that backed our position, not theirs. I'm surprised that not a lot has been made of this. In hindsight, it was an error by MP not to seize the bull by the horns at that point and bring the case to a head, rather than leaving it dangling. I suspect it was because they believed the scheme to be full-proof, bolstered by HMRC getting this wrong, and that by bringing it to court would have led to an almost immediate change to the legislation, in effect, closing their lucrative scheme.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

In hindsight, it was an error by MP not to seize the bull by the horns at that point and bring the case to a head, rather than leaving it dangling.

If it was an error, it was an error made by everyone promoting and using the scheme, not just MP. Some of the Big 4 were promoting it, and they never advised any of their clients to force the issue.

No-one expected retrospection.

Retrospection didn't even occur to HMRC until 1st November 2007 when a QC from a tax chambers suggested it.

In my view too much has been made of what the judges said we could have/should have done.

Some of the arguments they put forward to justify their decision were really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[BolshieBastard]

If it was an error, it was an error made by everyone promoting and using the scheme, not just MP. Some of the Big 4 were promoting it, and they never advised any of their clients to force the issue.

No-one expected retrospection.

Retrospection didn't even occur to HMRC until 1st November 2007 when a QC from a tax chambers suggested it.

In my view too much has been made of what the judges said we could have/should have done.

Some of the arguments they put forward to justify their decision were really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Im not really bothered what other scheme promoters did or didnt do.

I think MP should have been far more pro active especially regarding the 4 selected 'test cases' instead of being re active.

I also think they should have given far more robust advice regarding CTD's rather than 'keep hold of your money. We are going to win this thing' as I was told. Course I could name the person who told me this over the phone but I'll lay my exposure to nothing MP would say the comments of their staff do not represent MP's official position in any way, shape or form etc, etc.

Bitter? Me? Not half.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Some of the arguments they put forward to justify their decision were really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

It does look that way, doesn't it? The decision came first, and then the supporting arguments were reverse-engineered to fit. That's probably why they don't stand up to close analysis.

I can't get my head around this one...

"82. (...) The litigation would probably have been protracted, costly and uncertain."

In context, LJ Mummery is condoning the recourse to retrospective legislation, partly on the grounds that HMRC couldn't guarantee the success of litigation based upon the Law as`it stood.

I'm sublimely ignorant of the Theory of Law, but it feels as if something pretty fundamental is being trashed in that statement.

[centurian]

The decision came first, and then the supporting arguments were reverse-engineered to fit.

I never expected it to be any other way.

It is highly unlikely that they were sitting on the fence for 6 months researching it - then suddenly had a eureka moment and come to their decision.

More likely they formed an opinion pretty quickly, but then had to take all those months to validate their initial conclusions

Which is about as polite as I can put it

[BrilloPad]

I never expected it to be any other way.

It is highly unlikely that they were sitting on the fence for 6 months researching it - then suddenly had a eureka moment and come to their decision.

More likely they formed an opinion pretty quickly, but then had to take all those months to validate their initial conclusions

Which is about as polite as I can put it

IMO they had decided before the evidence was heard. They will get well rewarded.

[portseven]

Just setting up my payment for this years SA to HMRC (now Ltd not in any more schemes)

I feel really sick doing this, giving money to an organisation that is such a complete pile of tulip morally and organisationally