BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[reckless]

Arguments for the defence

Possibly.

If the 'objective' was to try and collect tax from people who had used the scheme during the past 7 years then the obvious 'alternative means' would have been to take us to court, rather than legislating with retrospective effect. They could still have legislated prospectively to protect future revenues.

There seems to be quite a lot of interesting and worthwhile arguments being postulated on this thread, by a considerable range of wise participants. I hope that these thoughts and possible defence strategies will find their way to the Montpelier legal team. The more ammunition the better, especially when it's 'backs to the wall time!'

[smalldog]

VODAFONE

Nice to see the indian supreme court arent affraid to tell the tax office theyre wrong! fingers crossed ours have enough courage:

Indian tax ruling buoys Vodafone | Interactive Investor

[DonkeyRhubarb]

There seems to be quite a lot of interesting and worthwhile arguments being postulated on this thread, by a considerable range of wise participants. I hope that these thoughts and possible defence strategies will find their way to the Montpelier legal team. The more ammunition the better, especially when it's 'backs to the wall time!'

It is my feeling that these court hearings are largely just for show.

They are not like a jury trial where you've got lay people making the decision who can be influenced by barristers arguments. Also these cases are decided on points of law not whether witnesses are telling the truth or not.

The Supreme Court is made up of the most senior and experienced judges in the land. They probably know the law better than the barristers presenting the case.

My guess is that they will already have decided which way it's going before they step into court and the barristers only have very marginal influence on the outcome.

[BrilloPad]

they will already have been bribed which way it's going before they step into court and the barristers only have no influence on the outcome.

FTFY

[winstontizzer]

There seems to be quite a lot of interesting and worthwhile arguments being postulated on this thread, by a considerable range of wise participants. I hope that these thoughts and possible defence strategies will find their way to the Montpelier legal team. The more ammunition the better, especially when it's 'backs to the wall time!'

Good luck to you with the case before the SC.Retrospection abhorrent.The Supremacy of Parliament is I think now accepted to be tempered by "the Rule of Law" established by Dicey 19th C. Equality, Certainty, freedom from arbitrary action.
Lord Bingham was a great influence on this as former President of the Supreme Court as a fetter on Parliament. The 2005 Constitutional Reform Act 2005 references it. Bingham's views strongly supported in this Paper from April 2011. Makes interesting reading. Powerful arguments on the rule of law esp on support of the logic of extending Art 7 ECHR to civil law sanctions. The Paper is at w ww.venice.coe.int/docs/2011/CDL-AD%282011%29003rev-e.pdf if you want to read it. The higher the case goes, the less political, the more erudite and academic the arguments should become. BTW in my opinion if Sumption is on the bench, that is a very good thing.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

BTW in my opinion if Sumption is on the bench, that is a very good thing.

I agree. He clearly derides convention rights.

Newest Supreme Court judge attacks European Court of Human Rights | Mail Online

PS. although I wouldn't want more than one of him on the panel!

[centurian]

As the stamp duty loophole involves millions more £££s than ours and there are likely to be more people doing it, surely HMRC's attitude to us is dis-proportionate.

The link is a few months old, but

BBC News - Worries over stamp duty avoidance

But an HMRC spokesman said: "The schemes rely on an interpretation of law that produces an outcome different from that envisaged when the law was enacted, and that HMRC does not accept."

Sound familiar

"This is an aggressive tax planning move. You are essentially taking tens of thousands of pounds out of the Revenue's pocket. It is not for everyone. We tell our clients there is a 10% chance that they will receive a letter from HMRC challenging their tax return,"

At least the scheme providers appear to be up-front about the risks though, unlike many providers still advertising as 85% net salary with no risk.

[fractionater]

cameron wanting a reform of ECHR...

BBC News - David Cameron to urge European court reform

could this eventually impact us?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

cameron wanting a reform of ECHR...

BBC News - David Cameron to urge European court reform

could this eventually impact us?

Unlikely.

To all intents and purposes, the UK Supreme Court already acts as a subsidiary court to Strasbourg.

That's why I hold the view that, if we lose in the SC, the chances of getting a different result in Strasbourg are very slim indeed. I'm not saying that Montpelier/Steed/KPMG shouldn't try but it would be a total long shot.

[BrilloPad]

Unlikely.

To all intents and purposes, the UK Supreme Court already acts as a subsidiary court to Strasbourg.

That's why I hold the view that, if we lose in the SC, the chances of getting a different result in Strasbourg are very slim indeed. I'm not saying that Montpelier/Steed/KPMG shouldn't try but it would be a total long shot.

But if we lose in the SC then Strasbourg becomes almost irrelevant? The closure notice process will start. I know it will take a while for tribunals etc.