BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[DonkeyRhubarb]

My worry was simply that, in a tribunal, the human dimension might get lost in the mix.

I don't think tribunals care about the human dimension. It's all about tax law.

The fate of 2500 people will be decided by a handful of test cases.

Were we all to demand our own individual day in court, the tax courts would be clogged up for years. Now there's an idea...

[BrilloPad]

Were we all to demand our own individual day in court, the tax courts would be clogged up for years. Now there's an idea...

Can we demand our own day in court?

If so, will Mr B be there prosecuting?

[Toocan]

Ah! Thank you for explaining that.

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.

I think it’s important to remember that we paid Montpelier to take care of this for us. I’m not saying we should be naïve – money does need to be saved up just in case.

However, all that has happened is that the UK Courts have said that the UK Parliament can make s.58 retrospective. That’s all.

Despite HMRC’s “newsletter”, we have had no judgement on whether the scheme worked or not; and if it didn’t then how would it be taxed.

It looks like there will be an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights for them to make judgment on the same question as the Judicial Review. But even after that – regardless of the outcome – we’ll still not have had a judgement on whether the scheme worked.

HMRC’s letters are something of a mind game. Their last one said that if you couldn’t afford to pay everything then you should pay some. Does bankruptcy come in different sizes? I think not.

Right now we need to wait to see what the next step will be. The appeals are still suspended so no one is going to turn up at your door.

BTW I agree that the passivity is frustrating but I don’t see what else Montpelier could do at this stage. Would you give the enemy your attack plan before the first shell was fired?

[jeanvaljean]

Focus for the next three weeks

With the budget taking place on 21 March, is this not the perfect time for a massive effort, via Members of Parliament, to seek to get included in that budget a simple clause which removes the retrospective element of the current law?

[Toocan]

Can we demand our own day in court?

If so, will Mr B be there prosecuting?

I think some issues will be dealt with collectively, but others are subjective and individual to each tax payer. I would think HMRC are hoping to reach agreement with the scheme providers.

HMRC can ask the tax courts to combine cases – but that can’t be done where the issues are individual.

They can reach agreement with all of the providers and all of the scheme users very easily – we all know what that agreement would be.

[Toocan]

With the budget taking place on 21 March, is this not the perfect time for a massive effort, via Members of Parliament, to seek to get included in that budget a simple clause which removes the retrospective element of the current law?

It is – but I think it would be politically difficult to achieve. It would be much easier to make the case that interest should not be charged as there was no tax charge prior to Aug 2008. The beauty of this argument is that as soon as one agrees with that, the whole basis for the retrospection falls away.

There were about 3,000 scheme users and a significant percentage of those would have to write to their MPs for this to have a chance to work. The MPs must be made aware of the pain that this legislation could cause.

You can make suggestions for the budget here:

Budget representation - HM Treasury

[SantaClaus]

Meanwhile in other news....

Ken Livingstone: I am not a tax dodger - Telegraph

[BolshieBastard]

Meanwhile in other news....

Ken Livingstone: I am not a tax dodger - Telegraph

I think what is more important in that article is the way the torygraph make out 'service companies' where husband & wife are joint shareholders is a tax avoidance issue that needs to be stopped in all circumstances, irrespective of livingston's hypocrisy.

[nick4notax]

It is – but I think it would be politically difficult to achieve. It would be much easier to make the case that interest should not be charged as there was no tax charge prior to Aug 2008. The beauty of this argument is that as soon as one agrees with that, the whole basis for the retrospection falls away.

There were about 3,000 scheme users and a significant percentage of those would have to write to their MPs for this to have a chance to work. The MPs must be made aware of the pain that this legislation could cause.

You can make suggestions for the budget here:

Budget representation - HM Treasury

Excellent link, thanks. I'll be submitting mine by tomorrow's close of play. We should ALL fill one in, even if expectations are low.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

BTW I agree that the passivity is frustrating but I don’t see what else Montpelier could do at this stage. Would you give the enemy your attack plan before the first shell was fired?

Thank you for the reply.

It looks as if I dug a bit of a hole for myself with the original question (having tried so hard to word it carefully). Language can be quite an unreliable tool - a fact which HMRC exploit to the hilt.

I didn't mean to question MP's capability or integrity - the passivity arises out of the situation itself. It produces a compulsion to 'find out' wtF is going on. I suspect, for example, that a great many people now know a good deal more about ECHR A1P1 than they would ever have wished upon themselves.

I completely agree, though, that it would be strategically unwise for Montpelier to broadcast its intentions.