BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Leyther70]

Peeps, Emotions are still running high for everyone at this moment in time for all concerned, we all knew deep down that this was for the long haul, if you didn't you were a fool. Yes agree that we should receive a full statement and guidance for MP and I'm sure we will get something shortly.
?

I agree, personally I am now much calmer than I was this time yesteday, I have resigned myself that I'm in no different position than I was at 9.59AM yesterday. However MP do need to see now that their lack of communication is causing angst from some of their clients.

[BolshieBastard]

I hope someone from MP is taking note of this, there is now quite clearly a split in the views of 'their' clients, I would hazzard a guess its probably close to 50/50 too, hence there is a real need for them to address this ASAP.

I for one would like to know what if any chance there is of doing a deal with HMRC and what this would likely entail. We paid you to be Tax Consultants so please start consulting with us!

We cannot make informed judgements on the best way forward for our own personal circumstances if we are not advised on the options that *may* be available to us.

I suspect the spilt is probably more like 60 \ 40 given the number of lurkers and the latest COA judgement (not a single judge in 4 has looked favourably towards our case). Yes, there are some people prepared to see it through to the bitter end (and good luck to them) but others want to draw a line underneath this now and move on.

[sjw]

The problem is that many people cannot afford to negotiate. The poll at the top of the previous thread showed circa 60% would lose their homes. Of that a good proportion would be bankrupt. Payment for most others would involve serious destruction of their retirement funds.

What most of this comes back to is that there will be an increase in long term reliance on the State for provision than might otherwise have been the case. There are those facing bankruptcy where some work in the banking sector - they would no longer be able to sell their core skills. Banks simply do not employ people with CCJs let alone bankruptcies or repossessions. In addition, I know of one or two accountants who would be unable to ply their trade as accountants following bankruptcy.

Background checks these days necessarily include financial checks to weed out those that might be more tempted by financial impropriety. Bankruptcy increasingly means unemployment.

This isn't overplaying the situation. The poll on the last thread shows the results of 260 odd people and the JCHR reported similar findings. There are approximately 2,500 people impacted by this travesty.

Fine let them carry on fighting and good luck to them. But as has been pointed out Montpelier are our tax advisors - we've paid for a service and some of us now want to pursue a different route. That's our prerogative.

[Taura]

Fine let them carry on fighting and good luck to them. But as has been pointed out Montpelier are our tax advisors - we've paid for a service and some of us now want to pursue a different route. That's our prerogative.

they can negotiate with me over my dead body.

The CoA was a process to check that the HC judge was correct in points of law. Within their remit they decided he was, I suspect unless he made a massive error in law, they would all agree to support him in this.

The SC is a different matter. If we fail in the SC I'd be looking for partners to setup a fighting fund to ECHR.

I'd rather lawyers got their hands on my money than the scum at HMRC.

[Fireship]

It's got to be easier for them to agree with HMRC. They're not private investigators so they can just take HMRC distorted version of the truth and treat them as facts. No-one will ever blame them for trusting the government.
Much harder and far more contentious to try to disagree with government and over-turn an existing law.
I would like to know what happens at the SC - do we just re-preset our case in the same way, on the same arguments? it seems to me that the only chance we have is if we can pick a large hole in one of the existing judgements and come up with an argument that undermines their reasoning.

Otherwise, we're just putting forward same questions and asking the SC to go against 4 previous judges and the government - I can't see that happening.

I appreciate people wanting to remain positive and look forward to the next round and I would like to join that group, but I would like at least some reasoning as to why we think the SC will be any different.
Just a statement from MontP to say they are 'dissapointed' doesn't give me much hope I'm afraid.

Agreed….

I’ve not read had a chance to read the ruling yet but someone previously stated that the LJ’s referred to the legislation as an “amendment” which is not “clarification” in which case can’t be applied retroactively under current UK legislation. If the LJ’s have accepted this to be so then why can’t the retroactive aspect be overturned? Are we challenging that specific angle?

Also, are we challenging HMRC’s specific targeting of us?? As a government agency it’s reasonable for us to expect them to apply the same rules to all taxpayers across the board yet in our case we appear to have been singled out whereas other individuals using similar planning were offered a “cease now and we’ll forget all about it” option (such as Castlemaine). Isn’t there a case to answer as to why they have treated us differently – after all our reasonable expectation of HMRC based on their previous actions is/was that we’d be treated the same and a similar offer would be made as previously entered into with other individuals/companies…..

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Am I going mad here?

Does anyone seriously think HMRC are going to start offering deals when they've just thrashed us a second time in court?

Someone please tell me what bargaining chips we have because I'm buggered if I know.

[screwthis]

they can negotiate with me over my dead body.

The CoA was a process to check that the HC judge was correct in points of law. Within their remit they decided he was, I suspect unless he made a massive error in law, they would all agree to support him in this.

The SC is a different matter. If we fail in the SC I'd be looking for partners to setup a fighting fund to ECHR.

I'd rather lawyers got their hands on my money than the scum at HMRC.

Exactly. Why possible advantage is there to not carrying on?
I can't understand the viewpoint of I've had enough I just want this to be over.

If you have the money then put it in a CTD as has been explained very well over and over again on this forum by the likes of DR. By putting it in a CTD the money is PAID. No more interest, no further liability no disadvantage to handing it over now.

If the appeal is denied and you get baliffs at your door then OK hand over the money as that is stress that some don't want to deal with.

If you can't afford to pay then you can't pay anyway.
If not then CTD, stop following case and back to daily life.

[BolshieBastard]

they can negotiate with me over my dead body.

The CoA was a process to check that the HC judge was correct in points of law. Within their remit they decided he was, I suspect unless he made a massive error in law, they would all agree to support him in this.

The SC is a different matter. If we fail in the SC I'd be looking for partners to setup a fighting fund to ECHR.

I'd rather lawyers got their hands on my money than the scum at HMRC.

If you want to be pedantic about it, the SC is not a different matter. The UK convention is that Parliament ie the Goverment of the day, is supreme on all matter relating to budget finance bills as BN 66 was.

The courts have no power to overturn BN 66 and, I'd go so far as to say this is why we are finding not a single judge who has considered the case has found for us, not one.

IMVHO, people have completely lost sight of this simple test. A Government budget finance bill has never been defeated since this convention arose. People may argue there's always a first time but again, imvho, that's misguided.

[Taura]

If you want to be pedantic about it, the SC is not a different matter. The UK convention is that Parliament ie the Goverment of the day, is supreme on all matter relating to budget finance bills as BN 66 was.

The courts have no power to overturn BN 66 and, I'd go so far as to say this is why we are finding not a single judge who has considered the case has found for us, not one.

IMVHO, people have completely lost sight of this simple test. A Government budget finance bill has never been defeated since this convention arose. People may argue there's always a first time but again, imvho, that's misguided.

Well, it's not totally misguided. the history books are full of people who lost at every hurdle except that last one. It's not the first losers that count, it's the last winner.

Morale is low but logic remains the same arbitrater. If you have enough to settle and want shot of the worry, put the amount in a CTD and forget the case, do not settle.

If you do not have the money to settle, so not settle because you can't. You are tied into a fight.

By all means pursue avenues such as litigation against MP if you feel they can bear fruit, but do not settle with HMRC.

If you think HMRC will negotiate when we're on the back foot due to a drubbing in the CoA then you're living on Mars as far as I can see.

[kbob]

If you want to be pedantic about it, the SC is not a different matter. The UK convention is that Parliament ie the Goverment of the day, is supreme on all matter relating to budget finance bills as BN 66 was.

The courts have no power to overturn BN 66 and, I'd go so far as to say this is why we are finding not a single judge who has considered the case has found for us, not one.

IMVHO, people have completely lost sight of this simple test. A Government budget finance bill has never been defeated since this convention arose. People may argue there's always a first time but again, imvho, that's misguided.

It's clear not a snowflakes chance in hell. Everyone here has been delusional about justice etc...

I saw this two years ago and got the **** off air strip one. I made plans and got out - HMRC will never see a penny from me.

Perhaps it's not too late for others to wake up. Mind you if you have not done anything other than discuss off setting interest and whining about justice you might have taken steps to secure you and your families future.

Sorry to be blunt but I'm sick of the whining on here. There has been ample time to plan.

Regards,

kbob