Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Is it really too surprising that MP have not offered us an in-depth appraisel of their tactics planned for the next stages of winning this? I would suspect that a company with such a large amount of experience battling HMRC know too well that we (individually) could become the source of leaked information to HMRC. I hope I'm not being naive by counting on MP to have a better plan in store, perhaps for the tax tribunals. It's common knowledge that we will go to Strasbourg, but the battle plan for tax tribunals should be kept in MP's domain. After all, HMRC are capable of anything when they smell info they need ( think: illegal IoM arrest / search warrants, for example ).
It might help HMRC to read what we're speculating might be used by MP. Personally, I'll trust WG. Apart from it being very personal for him now, apart from the reputation and earnings MP have at risk, the main point is that he and MP have stuck to their word and more so far.
Lord Clyde in 1929: ‘No man is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or to his property as to enable the Revenue to put the largest possible shovel into his stores. The Revenue is not slow to take every advantage which is open to it under the taxing statutes for the purpose of depleting the taxpayer’s pocket. And the taxpayer is entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Revenue.’
The arguments at a tribunal will be totally different to the Huitson case. These will be technical in nature focusing on specific and precise points of law, with none of the HR woollyness.
I don't think anyone is expressing mistrust - that's too emotive a word. It's the unavoidable passivity that is the cause of all the frustration.
My worry was simply that, in a tribunal, the human dimension might get lost in the mix.
Hmm.. but that was a single case in the courts.
Surely we are talking about a tribunal appeal per person. I cannot see how we can all be heard at once, as my reading is that the appeals have to be made individually.
I can see that MP would fund appeal 1 or 2 but when we get to number 732 the tribunal may consider it unreasonable to allow these to progress, and I cannot see MP continuing ad infinitum with this approach.
Although I would be happy if that was not the case.
Is it really too surprising that MP have not offered us an in-depth appraisel of their tactics planned for the next stages of winning this? I would suspect that a company with such a large amount of experience battling HMRC know too well that we (individually) could become the source of leaked information to HMRC. I hope I'm not being naive by counting on MP to have a better plan in store, perhaps for the tax tribunals. It's common knowledge that we will go to Strasbourg, but the battle plan for tax tribunals should be kept in MP's domain. After all, HMRC are capable of anything when they smell info they need ( think: illegal IoM arrest / search warrants, for example ).
It might help HMRC to read what we're speculating might be used by MP. Personally, I'll trust WG. Apart from it being very personal for him now, apart from the reputation and earnings MP have at risk, the main point is that he and MP have stuck to their word and more so far.
I agree with all that. But it does not stop me thinking we are going to have to pay up in 2012/2013. I always went for a resolution by 2012 - but not for this result.
Is it really too surprising that MP have not offered us an in-depth appraisel of their tactics planned for the next stages of winning this? I would suspect that a company with such a large amount of experience battling HMRC know too well that we (individually) could become the source of leaked information to HMRC. I hope I'm not being naive by counting on MP to have a better plan in store, perhaps for the tax tribunals. It's common knowledge that we will go to Strasbourg, but the battle plan for tax tribunals should be kept in MP's domain. After all, HMRC are capable of anything when they smell info they need ( think: illegal IoM arrest / search warrants, for example ).
It might help HMRC to read what we're speculating might be used by MP. Personally, I'll trust WG. Apart from it being very personal for him now, apart from the reputation and earnings MP have at risk, the main point is that he and MP have stuck to their word and more so far.
I completely agree with you notax. This is a war not a battle, and I would be far more concerned if WG simply laid out his whole battle plan on paper for all and sundry to see - that would be suicidal. And that is the problem with this forum. HMRC are reading it, quite obviously.
I have been involved with heavy duty civil litigation for the past 4 years and I have learned a lot - even obvious things like keeping cards close to chest, but more critically the fact that small innocent accidental errors made by parties in the past may come back to haunt them.
Everyone also seems to be forgetting that one bloke has an utter fortune resting on this - tens of millions - so maybe its him financing everything - he isnt going to give up.
Hmm.. but that was a single case in the courts.
Surely we are talking about a tribunal appeal per person. I cannot see how we can all be heard at once, as my reading is that the appeals have to be made individually.
I can see that MP would fund appeal 1 or 2 but when we get to number 732 the tribunal may consider it unreasonable to allow these to progress, and I cannot see MP continuing ad infinitum with this approach.
Although I would be happy if that was not the case.
The tribunal appeals will be dealt with as representative test cases.
If you recall, prior to BN66, four users were selected as test cases. The same thing will apply this time.
Comment