BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[TalkingCheese]

...Many people have divorced over the past 10 years...

and S.58 will have played its part in that too no doubt.

[helen7]

You can't know that because you don't know 3000 people's individual circumstances.

Many people have divorced over the past 10 years, which has left them a lot poorer.

Over the last 4 years there has been severe recession and high unemployment.

Sorry, I was referencing those people that might have blown the money on holidays and fast cars and assumed we would win in court so saved nothing (as a colleague of mine has done).

I can't believe they have been allowed to back date it retrospectively without first challenging the workings of the arrangement in court. I am sure that is an admission that the arrangement worked within the law at the time which should bolster our case that interest cannot possibly apply.

[TalkingCheese]

This is the trouble...

Sorry, I was referencing those people that might have blown the money on holidays and fast cars and assumed we would win in court so saved nothing (as a colleague of mine has done).

I can't believe they have been allowed to back date it retrospectively without first challenging the workings of the arrangement in court. I am sure that is an admission that the arrangement worked within the law at the time which should bolster our case that interest cannot possibly apply.

They (HMRC/Judges so far/Joe Public reading a tax dodger headline) think we have all gone wild, lived the high life, splashed the cash and are getting our comeuppance. This is not the case for me and I bet the majority which is why it is worth getting in front of your MP to show them who you are.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Another snippet from HMRC's witness statement.

hmrc2.jpg download

Sorry if it makes your blood boil.

[ir35amnesia]

Not for me, I've no intention in getting involved in another scheme. The website hasn't been updated in quite a while, so in the interests of anyone tempted in this direction, it mentions that anyone who took it up could have walked away with no tax liability in months rather than waiting the years we have. So, for the record Alan, how many people have managed to do that? I think it's only fair that if you are going to promote hat offering when people are going to be vulnerable and desperate that you should provide some evidence of your success, or is it just another road back into hell?

A/ NB bn66.co.uk is NOT "my baby". I provide some behind the scenes advice (from the safety of my straight jacket!!). THEREFORE the following must be read on basis that it is my humble opinion & can be discarded at will.
B/ it is NOT a scheme. Your circumstances either meet the requirements or dont.
C/ it is offered on a "no win no fee" basis.
D/ It is based on an opinion from a QC.
D/ SO far no-one has succeeded BECAUSE HMRC are delaying their technical response to the claim that the contractor is NOT liable to pay the tax (created by BN66 retro). MAYBE HMRC are delaying technical response UNTIL 3000 closure notices have been issued and appealed against BECAUSE imho ONCE the appeal to the closure notice has been submitted YOU cannot go back and change your appeal to qualify for the bn66 alternative.

[Donnie Darko]

C/ it is offered on a "no win no fee" basis.

That isn't strictly true. They are asking for £500 upfront and then another £500.

Get a few hundred people to cough up and that's not a bad little earner.

[BarneyCool]

A/ NB bn66.co.uk is NOT "my baby". I provide some behind the scenes advice (from the safety of my straight jacket!!). THEREFORE the following must be read on basis that it is my humble opinion & can be discarded at will.
B/ it is NOT a scheme. Your circumstances either meet the requirements or dont.
C/ it is offered on a "no win no fee" basis.
D/ It is based on an opinion from a QC.
D/ SO far no-one has succeeded BECAUSE HMRC are delaying their technical response to the claim that the contractor is NOT liable to pay the tax (created by BN66 retro). MAYBE HMRC are delaying technical response UNTIL 3000 closure notices have been issued and appealed against BECAUSE imho ONCE the appeal to the closure notice has been submitted YOU cannot go back and change your appeal to qualify for the bn66 alternative.


AND ON A SEPARATE NOTE RE ACCUSATION THAT I SIDED WITH HMRC AT THE HUITSON CASE.
I was merely providing factual information to HMRC correcting - what i thought to be - inaccuracies emanating from both parties.

I was merely providing factual information to HMRC correcting - what i thought to be - inaccuracies emanating from both parties.

You sound like a weasel to me!

[TalkingCheese]

This helps us right ?

Another snippet from HMRC's witness statement.

hmrc2.jpg download

Sorry if it makes your blood boil.

"I can confirm that the first time that HMRC conveyed its view to Montpelier, or its scheme users, that the 1987 legislation actually applied to these schemes was in February 2008"... and there it is. Apply S.58 retrospectively back to at most that date !

[moira under the stairs]

"I can confirm that the first time that HMRC conveyed its view to Montpelier, or its scheme users, that the 1987 legislation actually applied to these schemes was in February 2008"... and there it is. Apply S.58 retrospectively back to at most that date !

Bingo !!!

[PlaneSailing]

I despair

Another snippet from HMRC's witness statement.

hmrc2.jpg download

Sorry if it makes your blood boil.

'or must have intended' what the f*** does that mean?!

It's obvious that it's NOT what they intended. Look at the Hansard entry.

And what was Hector doing with his time between opening my investigation in 2003 and 2008 when he decided Padmore applied? Do they not have google in HMRC?

Oh, I forgot, they were leading us down the garden path with Archer Shee and tax tribunals. When Parker said 'we could have pushed for closure notices so it was our own fault' did he not know about that?