BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[SantaClaus]

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 is 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....

I think you meant "isn't" Brillo. A silver lining for some people.

[SantaClaus]

and in other news....

UK braced for first double dip since the Seventies | News

A lot of the blame for this should lie at HMRC's door for the way they treat small businesses. Still, they are a completely unaccountable organisation, so are free to destroy the UK f they want.

[jeanvaljean]

Revenge

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....

Thanks for the welcome!

As I was yet again unable to sleep because of this, my thoughts turned to the individuals - yes, individuals - who are causing me this pain.

It struck me that if Sun Tzu were in our position, he'd have his sights firmly set on revenge and putting someone squarely on the hook.

That person or persons would be praying that the decision finally went their way because if it didn't, that person would be personally liable for the substantial claims of those on our side.

That person could then enjoy sleepless nights, being fractious with family and the general malaise of having the Sword of Damoclese hanging above them.

It would be particularly lovely if their defence later was that the orders they were following were legal at the time.

So - who, in this realm of fantasy, would that lucky person/s be? I think they should know, don't you?

Oh, to dream of revenge serving that writ (or whatever the correct term is) -and surely causing bankruptcy amongst those whose personal decisions might yet do so to me.

[SantaClaus]

...

So - who, in this realm of fantasy, would that lucky person/s be? I think they should know, don't you?

Oh yes, they know.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

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?

There are only 2 scenarios where I could envisage HMRC continuing to hold off

1) definitely if the Supreme Court refers PwC's case to the ECJ (the SC would suspend proceedings until the ECJ has delivered a ruling)

2) possibly if the Steed/KPMG case gets listed for hearing in Strasbourg (it is 3 years this month since they submitted the application)

I can't imagine them waiting while Montpelier applies to Strasbourg. The only option for Montpelier to delay collection would be to challenge HMRC through the tax courts.

[SantaClaus]

There are only 2 scenarios where I could envisage HMRC continuing to hold off

1) definitely if the Supreme Court refers PwC's case to the ECJ (the SC would suspend proceedings until the ECJ has delivered a ruling)

2) possibly if the Steed/KPMG case gets listed for hearing in Strasbourg (it is 3 years this month since they submitted the application)

I can't imagine them waiting while Montpelier applies to Strasbourg. The only option for Montpelier to delay collection would be to challenge HMRC through the tax courts.

Thanks DR, that sheds more light on it.

What do you think are the chances of scenario 1 happening?

[Disgusted of Coventry]

As I was yet again unable to sleep because of this, my thoughts turned to the individuals - yes, individuals - who are causing me this pain.

I'm not personally affected by this, but I have a friend who has been TORTURED by the vile nonsense that is BN66.

My thoughts occasionally turn to the grubby little git who dreamed up the clarification=change ruse.

I've no idea what punishment should be levied upon this individual, but that it should be 'proportionate' and 'in the public interest'.

(Seven years hard labour comes to mind.)

[BrilloPad]

It struck me that if Sun Tzu were in our position, he'd have his sights firmly set on revenge and putting someone squarely on the hook.

I prefer to think of WWJD - what would Jesus do. I suspect he would just get on with his life and leave the worrying to these who can influence things. i.e. WG of MP and of coruse DR!

There again he might send a plague of locusts to smite a certain HMRC person who knows who he is - as he reads every post here.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

My thoughts occasionally turn to the grubby little git who dreamed up the clarification=change ruse.

It was a QC at a tax chambers who came up with the idea of retrospection and suggested it to HMRC in a meeting on 1st Nov 2007.

The budget note press release has been removed now but it contained the "clarification" ruse.
HM Revenue & Customs: Error page could not be found

"Legislation will be introduced in Finance Bill 2008 to clarify, retrospectively, legislation introduced in 1987, which itself was retrospective, so that it has effect as intended."

Two of the main protagonists were named at the end of the press release.

"9. If you have any questions about this change, please contact Martin Brooks on 020 7147 2651 (email: [email protected]) or Simon Davis on 020 7147 2666 (email: [email protected])."

According to his evidence to the High Court, Davis was the "Assistant Director responsible for what became section 58". Presumably it was him that proposed this to the Treasury and briefed officials.

I believe Brooks was the more junior and responsible for the drafting of the clause.

[guidolavespa]

There is hope for us yet...

Three judges ruled on Wednesday that parliament did not have the power to change “with such a retrospective effect” the “feed-in tariffs” paid to homes, businesses and communities for generating small-scale renewable electricity.

Industry and green groups hail solar victory - FT.com