BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Back to Basics

Amidst all the furour over the last 24 hours, I thought to take stock of what grounds we are losing on and what that means legally if it continues past the SC.

The couirts are being asked what to rules on and they rule on what is asked - That is, is BN66 proportionate and does it strike a fair balance when tested against HR. And the answer (thus far) is yes. But is the right question being asked? It's pretty clear that all the valid points made here over time about HMRC behaviour and the like don't wash with the courts. But is this because it doesn't wash in terms of the HR claim on which the courts are being asked to rule alone or would it wash if approached in a different way?

Losing the SC for example using the same line of questioning as used by MP thus far means that the CN Appeals would no longer be suspended. Can someone confirm if their understanding is the same on this point? I don't believe that collections have been suspended, but rather appeals. If so, then even losing at the SC simply means that appealing the CN's becomes possible.

If tru, would you appeal on HR grounds? I don't think I would. So if BN66 remains and does not breach A1P1 does that mean you will have to pay what is on the CN's? I'm not so sure. At the least it means (IMO) that you can appeal the CN's and if you lose will be sent a collection notice.

So if the above is correct, then I think this means that if you were to ask the right question (not an HR one) in terms of your CN rather than BN66, you might be on a different playing field.

For example:
Is BN66 in breach of A1P1?
versus
Is my CN to stand in light of the fact my SAR was accurate and legal

Different questions to ask of different bodies on different grounds. The 2nd one has nothing to do with BN66 or HR. It has everything to do with you. And thus far, has not been asked or tested (due to CN appeal suspensions as Singh QC confirmed).

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Montpelier are not going to open up a dialogue with HMRC for indviduals or small numbers of people.

This would weaken their hand and would not be fair on those people, I believe are the vast majority, who want them to fight this all the way.

If you want to negotiate with HMRC then this is something you will have to instigate yourself.

[RingStinger]

I think it worth reminding people too that the numbers who're posting on here are a very small representation of the overall number affected.

I doubt there's more than 200 posters on here, regular or irregular (like myself). Thats less than 10% of the alleged 2,500 contractors impacted. So not very representative.

Those posting on here are probably more vocal in nature than you're average Joe caught up in this mess so its not fair to assume that just cos 50% of the 200 are moaning about MP and wanting settlements, that 50% of the other 2,300 feel the same.

They either don't know this forum exists, or they're more than likely happy with what MP are doing.

[sjw]

Montpelier are not going to open up a dialogue with HMRC for indviduals or small numbers of people.

This would weaken their hand and would not be fair on those people, I believe are the vast majority, who want them to fight this all the way.

If you want to negotiate with HMRC then this is something you will have to instigate yourself.

Be very happy to if Montpelier want to refund my fees.

[Emigre]

Two points:

1. Only Huitson and Shiner can stop the legal proceedings. If every other person settled both cases would still proceed as long as applications for appeal are made and granted.

2. sjw. If you want out that is your prerogative and I understand that. All you actually have to do is write a cheque or pay online; you do not need anyone else to hold your hand. MontP will not start trying to negotiate a pointless settlement on the one hand while continuing a legal case on the other. What you are effectively saying is that you are not happy with the case continuing and would rather they focused on a settlement. It won't happen because they would be in breach of contract to at least the majority of us to whom they committed to taking it to the old HoL. If that doesn't suit you I recommend finding another advisor to handle your affairs and consider how you deal with MontP. If you genuinely want out, the latter won't happen because it would just prolong things albeit in a different direction.

[SantaClaus]

Amidst all the furour over the last 24 hours, I thought to take stock of what grounds we are losing on and what that means legally if it continues past the SC.

The couirts are being asked what to rules on and they rule on what is asked - That is, is BN66 proportionate and does it strike a fair balance when tested against HR. And the answer (thus far) is yes. But is the right question being asked? It's pretty clear that all the valid points made here over time about HMRC behaviour and the like don't wash with the courts. But is this because it doesn't wash in terms of the HR claim on which the courts are being asked to rule alone or would it wash if approached in a different way?

Losing the SC for example using the same line of questioning as used by MP thus far means that the CN Appeals would no longer be suspended. Can someone confirm if their understanding is the same on this point? I don't believe that collections have been suspended, but rather appeals. If so, then even losing at the SC simply means that appealing the CN's becomes possible.

If tru, would you appeal on HR grounds? I don't think I would. So if BN66 remains and does not breach A1P1 does that mean you will have to pay what is on the CN's? I'm not so sure. At the least it means (IMO) that you can appeal the CN's and if you lose will be sent a collection notice.

So if the above is correct, then I think this means that if you were to ask the right question (not an HR one) in terms of your CN rather than BN66, you might be on a different playing field.

For example:
Is BN66 in breach of A1P1?
versus
Is my CN to stand in light of the fact my SAR was accurate and legal

Different questions to ask of different bodies on different grounds. The 2nd one has nothing to do with BN66 or HR. It has everything to do with you. And thus far, has not been asked or tested (due to CN appeal suspensions as Singh QC confirmed).

Some good points made.

What might be useful here is an outline of the process we need to follow to appeal our case after the SC or even if the SC is refused.

We don't want to be fumbling for telephone numbers/addresses in the heat of the moment. At that point, a letter or form should be on our desk ready to send off to the relevant dept./court.

[moira under the stairs]

Two points:

1. Only Huitson and Shiner can stop the legal proceedings. If every other person settled both cases would still proceed as long as applications for appeal are made and granted.

2. sjw. If you want out that is your prerogative and I understand that. All you actually have to do is write a cheque or pay online; you do not need anyone else to hold your hand. MontP will not start trying to negotiate a pointless settlement on the one hand while continuing a legal case on the other. What you are effectively saying is that you are not happy with the case continuing and would rather they focused on a settlement. It won't happen because they would be in breach of contract to at least the majority of us to whom they committed to taking it to the old HoL. If that doesn't suit you I recommend finding another advisor to handle your affairs and consider how you deal with MontP. If you genuinely want out, the latter won't happen because it would just prolong things albeit in a different direction.

Well said... and too all that feel the same pay's your money and leave the forum for those that fight on...

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

I think peoples reaction is directly related to the size of their liability and available funds.

If you're a dead cert bankruptcy case and there are plenty on here who are, then you may as well hang on. What else can you do?

If you can afford to pay, I can understand you wanting it off your back. No doubt this is the lot that are bleating on the loudest about deals etc ....

.

I am at odds with your view.

As per my tag .. I can pay but would rather not.

Money is sat on my flexible mortgage doing me a favour so actually
I am with the fighters...........bring back brillopad !

[Fireship]

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.

Just a thought but shouldn’t we point that out to David Gauke?? After all he’s on record as saying it’s not appropriate to intervene whilst it’s before the courts, however if he knows the courts are the wrong place or have no power to intervene then why doesn’t he step in and put a stop to this nonsense instead of letting it drag on at great expense to all involved (including the taxpayer)??

Not that I expect him to suddenly grow a pair of course but it would be interesting to know his response!

[helen7]

I see no point negotiating a settlement at this stage; we might as well wait for to see what happens at the Supreme Court.

If you have a CTD it will stop vast amounts of interest building up.

We have known about this for 3 years now (or is it 4?! years). So if you are still contracting and haven't been saving to cover your liability then you are almost as stupid as when your first made the decision to join this scheme!