BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[jeanvaljean]

New to the board

This is my first post although I've been following the board for a long time as this affects me big time.

Who, specifically, is alleged to have misled parliament about this? This may have been discussed before but I can't remember.

The less optimism there is from posters, the more I get worried about the eventual outcome and the more I think I want compensated for what this case is doing to me - compensation is very much part of the zeitgeist after all. And who, specifically, could the claim be against?

Seeing a big estimate would cheer me up!

[bve534]

Tribunals - can they delay HMRC?

I know it will take a while for tribunals etc.

If we lose in the SC then is the tribunal option still possible? Will the tribunal be any different and include the legal facts i.e. HMRC knew the scheme was legal, knew the scheme was fully disclosed from the start, misled Parliament on Padmore and took 7 years to unlawfully close it down. Even if the legal facts of the case are raised and agreed by all, will it or could it make any diference once the SC has passed judgement? I see a situation that HMRC will have the bailiffs threatening demand letters to post immediately after the SC judgement (from at least 4 tax offices based on the batch I received last time, nothing like doing it in numbers) and there will be no way of delaying their demands. I hope I am wrong - any thoughts out there?

[BolshieBastard]

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.

Which is why if we are unsuccessful at the SC, HMRC intend to move on potential collection.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If we (and PwC) lose in the SC, then HMRC will then start processing the appeals of our closure notices.

The appeals need to be discharged before they can enforce collection. If you look at your on-line account it says payments suspended pending appeal. The appeal they are talking about is not the SC but the closure notices.

As BP says, it is unlikely an application to Strasbourg would stop this process, unless Steed/KPMG's case was already in motion.

Montpelier have said they would take a case through the tax courts. I don't know the exact basis, other than it's a technical argument that the drafting of the retrospective legislation is flawed ie. it doesn't apply to us.

There are other arguments which could be raised at the tax court eg. the use of "discovery". KPMG have also put forward an argument that the trust income should not be liable to NIC.

However, a tax tribunal is not going to debate matters such as whether the scheme was legal or if HMRC misled Parliament.

[jeanvaljean]

whether the scheme was legal......

If we (and PwC) lose in the SC, then HMRC will then start processing the appeals of our closure notices.

The appeals need to be discharged before they can enforce collection. If you look at your on-line account it says payments suspended pending appeal. The appeal they are talking about is not the SC but the closure notices.

As BP says, it is unlikely an application to Strasbourg would stop this process, unless Steed/KPMG's case was already in motion.

Montpelier have said they would take a case through the tax courts. I don't know the exact basis, other than it's a technical argument that the drafting of the retrospective legislation is flawed ie. it doesn't apply to us.

There are other arguments which could be raised at the tax court eg. the use of "discovery". KPMG have also suggested that the trust income should not be liable to NIC.

However, a tax tribunal is not going to debate matters such as whether the scheme was legal or if HMRC misled Parliament.

So where can matters such as whether the scheme was legal or if HMRC misled Parliament be debated? Only at the European hearing?

[BrilloPad]

And of course MP will fight this all the way. If they win they gets millions more in fees. And their reputation will be enhanced.

[SantaClaus]

I understood from the Montpelier letter dated 15th Dec, that HMRC will not collect until the ECHR case is over:

"Counsel for HMRC in open court during the Huitson hearing confirmed that HMRC would take no action to collect tax and National Insurance assessed until the legal proceedings were complete. We interpret that undertaking to include any legal challenge to the European Court."

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I understood from the Montpelier letter dated 15th Dec, that HMRC will not collect until the ECHR case is over:

"Counsel for HMRC in open court during the Huitson hearing confirmed that HMRC would take no action to collect tax and National Insurance assessed until the legal proceedings were complete. We interpret that undertaking to include any legal challenge to the European Court."

In the latest "newsletter" HMRC said that the Supreme Court was the end of the line.

[BrilloPad]

This is my first post although I've been following the board for a long time as this affects me big time.

Who, specifically, is alleged to have misled parliament about this? This may have been discussed before but I can't remember.

The less optimism there is from posters, the more I get worried about the eventual outcome and the more I think I want compensated for what this case is doing to me - compensation is very much part of the zeitgeist after all. And who, specifically, could the claim be against?

Seeing a big estimate would cheer me up!

Welcome to the thread!

The strategy should be hope for the best, prepare for the worst. But due to HMRC dragging their feet (in some cases it has been part of their life for over a decade) this has affected people. Personally I am still confident we will win. Everyone apart from HMRC agrees that HMRC have acted in an abysmal manner. MP have huge incentives to win this.

Alas there isn't going to be quick outcome. In 2008 I predicted 2012. I dont think anyone now expects any sort of closure before 2014. So you will have to hold tight. Not much choice really....

[SantaClaus]

In the latest "newsletter" HMRC said that the Supreme Court was the end of the line.

OK, so we have HMRC saying one thing and Montpelier saying another. Anyone hazaard a guess at the truth?

Edit: The Montpelier letter I think was in response to the HMRC "newsletter", so last word on the matter from MontP, or am I wrong?