BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Just found this from earlier in the thread. Is this correct?

If it is, then it sounds like a pretty formidable argument.

I may have been mistaken about this. Obviously, it would certainly be true if the case was ultimately decided in Strasbourg but I'm not sure that a judgment of the UK Supreme Court would carry any weight outside the UK.

KPMG have already applied to Strasbourg (Jan 2009) and Montpelier have committed to do likewise if we lose, so this may be where it ends up.

If you read our High Court judgment you will find various references to foreign cases eg. Beyeler v Italy and MA and 34 Others v Finland. There are links in the judgment to these decisions of the ECtHR.
Huitson, R (on the application of) v Revenue and Customs [2010] EWHC 97 (Admin) (28 January 2010)

One day courts in other countries may well refer to Huitson v United Kingdom as a precedent.

[SantaClaus]

We are all entitled to our own opinion. But I am very hopeful. The higher this goes the less chance of political interference there is. The only reason it has got this far is HMRC are lying cheating scum. I hope there is a heaven and hell because you know who is going to end up being rogered by the devil with a red hot poker for all eternity.

Hence my signature

What comes around, goes around as they say.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

...Obviously, it would certainly be true if the case was ultimately decided in Strasbourg but I'm not sure that a judgment of the UK Supreme Court would carry any weight outside the UK...

Even so, if this does go to the Supreme Court, aren't the SC likely to give some regard to the possible outcome of a hearing in Strasbourg?

And, just to be clear, how does precedent actually work? Does it apply to ALL of the elements of a case, or does it only apply to the final decision? To take a ludicrous example, could the elision of clarification/change become a Europe-wide opportunity for introducing retrospective taxation?

[smalldog]

another waste of tax payers money

BBC News - Harry Redknapp cleared of tax evasion

[BrilloPad]

BBC News - Harry Redknapp cleared of tax evasion

CUK comment here http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...p-cleared.html .

My favourite comment is here - http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post1477912 - I would post the text here but I might get banned as there are different stands between general and accounting. But I do hope Brannigan follows the link....

[Fog]

Approx Timings?

All, Can someone please advise on some timings?

If we lose our right to appeal - when will we have to pay back - is it immediately typically? Or can we take it to Europe?

If we win our right to appeal - which I am optimistic about - what are the next few stages and their min/max timings? ie. when would we go to the Supreme Court and how long would that take?

Any advice please as it impacts my family hugely if we have to pay soon so I'm trying to work out best and worst case!! And the main cases inbetween!

Fog

[Emigre]

Thanks Harry

Seems that the jury accepted that the payments were loans, even without a loan agreement, and that loans from a client are loans and not income...interesting.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

(1) Even so, if this does go to the Supreme Court, aren't the SC likely to give some regard to the possible outcome of a hearing in Strasbourg?

(2) And, just to be clear, how does precedent actually work? Does it apply to ALL of the elements of a case, or does it only apply to the final decision? To take a ludicrous example, could the elision of clarification/change become a Europe-wide opportunity for introducing retrospective taxation?

(1) The SC would say their job was merely to uphold the convention but I'm sure they wouldn't want to hand down a judgment that stood a good chance of being negated by Strasbourg.

(2) It applies to the distinctive elements/features of the case. A lot depends on which of the following the court accepts:

a) Parliament always intended that the 1987 legislation should prevent this type of DTA tax avoidance, and therefore all BN66 does is tighten up the drafting on the statute books so that the original law has the effect Parliament clearly intended at the time. This would only set a narrow precedent.

b) Parliament only ever intended that the 1987 legislation should prevent taxpayers gaining a backdated windfall by filing identical claims to Padmore et al. It was never intended to target other arrangements and therefore BN66 changes the original law in a way that Parliament never intended at the time. This would set a wide precedent.

[BrilloPad]

All, Can someone please advise on some timings?

If we lose our right to appeal - when will we have to pay back - is it immediately typically? Or can we take it to Europe?

If we win our right to appeal - which I am optimistic about - what are the next few stages and their min/max timings? ie. when would we go to the Supreme Court and how long would that take?

Any advice please as it impacts my family hugely if we have to pay soon so I'm trying to work out best and worst case!! And the main cases inbetween!

Fog

Roughly if we win appeal it will take about a year to 2 years.

HMRC say that going to Europe will not stop them enforcing closure notices. But MP will appeal them anyway. If HMRC win they have to get round to enforcing them.

Very unlikely we will see anything enforcable this year. It could easily be 2015 before action.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

All, Can someone please advise on some timings?

If we lose our right to appeal - when will we have to pay back - is it immediately typically? Or can we take it to Europe?

If we win our right to appeal - which I am optimistic about - what are the next few stages and their min/max timings? ie. when would we go to the Supreme Court and how long would that take?

Any advice please as it impacts my family hugely if we have to pay soon so I'm trying to work out best and worst case!! And the main cases inbetween!

Fog

Taking it to Europe will be unlikely to stop HMRC enforcing collection. It is not known what Montpelier would do in this scenario.

However, I am very confident the Supreme Court will grant us permission. (Feel free to flame me if they don't)

We should get a decision in the next month or so.

I would expect the court hearing to take place towards the end of the year or early 2013. The judgment would follow about 3 months later.