BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I do have to wonder why Montpelier have stuck with this so long and not thrown in the towel - perhaps because they know they will face a very large lawsuit for misrepresentation? Or because they have underlying liability insurance and the insurers have funded the fight so far? Or maybe they're just good guys with our interests at heart after all?

You are looking at this the wrong way.

If you are in the business of tax planning then fighting HMRC is your business. I know from talking to the folks at MP that they are in court a lot defending one scheme or another.

Yes, our case is unusual in that no-one has ever had to contend with retrospective legislation before but that's the only thing that's different about it.

You wouldn't last long in this business if you are seen as a quitter.

[NO TO RETRO]

Tribunals Process

The Suo Motu folks didn't pay NI.

None of the statements or letters HMRC sent out 2003-2007 mentioned NI. Only tax+interest.

NI magically appeared after they announced the legislation.

Sounds like something else to challenge at a tribunal.

DR (or somebody) - can you please answer a few questions on tribunals as I have very little knowledge in this area:

1) Who/what determines which cases go to a tribunal?
2) Do HMRC suspend collection from everybody on the scheme if ANY of MPs clients on the scheme are awaiting a tribunal?
3) Will the outcome/ruling of a tribunal for one of MP's clients affect everbody on the scheme in the same way?

Any answers much appreciated.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Got my letter from MP today, not a lot in it, other than the likelihood of going to Europe and the late 2012 / more likely 2013 date for the tribunal.

It got me thinking again about something else to add into any letter any of us are writing. I'm going to emphasise that HMRC have reneged on their in court assertion that they would wait until the end of the legal process. Time is all many of us have to head of disaster, given the level of deceit by HMRC in this process, I think we have a right to ask that they be held to their word, especially when given in open court.

Once again, it might fall on deaf ears, but I'm not asking to escape the legal process or be let off, just asking for HMRC to be held to their word.

[KNIGHTRK]

DR (or somebody) - can you please answer a few questions on tribunals as I have very little knowledge in this area:

1) Who/what determines which cases go to a tribunal?
2) Do HMRC suspend collection from everybody on the scheme if ANY of MPs clients on the scheme are awaiting a tribunal?
3) Will the outcome/ruling of a tribunal for one of MP's clients affect everbody on the scheme in the same way?

Any answers much appreciated.

Good questions. Does anyone have the answers?

[BolshieBastard]

DR (or somebody) - can you please answer a few questions on tribunals as I have very little knowledge in this area:

1) Who/what determines which cases go to a tribunal?
2) Do HMRC suspend collection from everybody on the scheme if ANY of MPs clients on the scheme are awaiting a tribunal?
3) Will the outcome/ruling of a tribunal for one of MP's clients affect everbody on the scheme in the same way?

Any answers much appreciated.

As I understand it;

1, Legislation gives HMRC and taxpayers the option of going before a tribunal to contend a decsion of such matters.

2, Unless you agree to pay up and therefore do not contest HMRC's decision on BN66, each case will have to go before a Tax Tribunal unless HMRC and scheme providers agree to a number of test cases and all their participants in their scheme will be judge under that particular tribunal's finding. AFAIA, enforced collection wont proceed until these tribunals decisions are delivered.

3, I would presume tax tribunals, similar to benefit tribunals etc, are not bound by decisions of previous tribunals as they are independent and look at each case on its merits. However, where there is case law or a legal decision such as on BN66, they will take this into consideration when reaching their decision.

As an example, during the Miners strike in the late 80's, so called independent Social Security Tribunals were put under intense pressure to abide by ministerial directive issued through the Office of the Chief Adjudication Officer not to allow certain benefit claims. This included ANY claim made by the wife of a striking miner ie she wasnt directly on strike but was to be 'considered' as being involved with a voluntary withdrawal of labour. (I kid you not!)

HTH

[BrilloPad]

I got my MP letter today. It did not look like a holding letter to me. I read it that we will probably have to pay up late 2012/early 2013.

[smalldog]

I got my MP letter today. It did not look like a holding letter to me. I read it that we will probably have to pay up late 2012/early 2013.

Hey Brillo bit down beat? I read it as it says consulting with counsel and other affected parties.

[BrilloPad]

You wouldn't last long in this business if you are seen as a quitter.

How long are they going to last we if lose? Not long I suspect. They have enormous incentive to fight.

[BrilloPad]

Hey Brillo bit down beat? I read it as it says consulting with counsel and other affected parties.

Consulting with councel regarding Europe. I am just being realistic - I did always believe we would win.

I would have like something more upbeat from MP.

[sjw]

[QUOTE=DonkeyRhubarb;1490160]You are looking at this the wrong way.

If you are in the business of tax planning then fighting HMRC is your business. I know from talking to the folks at MP that they are in court a lot defending one scheme or another.

Yes, our case is unusual in that no-one has ever had to contend with retrospective legislation before but that's the only thing that's different about it.

Hmm - but I thought MP had just about quit this side of the business - and if I were looking for tax advice a quick google search and a read of this forum would send me scurrying away like a scalded cat. Doesn't add up.

Doesn't really matter - we are in a hole and all I want to know how we can minimise exposure and what legal comeback we have on MP. I don't think that is an unfair question at this point of the proceedings.