BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[travellingknob]

Thanks for the update DR!!

Looks like the fight is just beginning, can't wait to see what's next!

I wish I shared your confidence. Aside from DRs efforts there's been no communication from MP and not the slightest hint of why they believe we have a case to carry on fighting. It could just as easily be they are giving it a last ditch effort before throwing in the towel

[BrilloPad]

I wish I shared your confidence. Aside from DRs efforts there's been no communication from MP and not the slightest hint of why they believe we have a case to carry on fighting. It could just as easily be they are giving it a last ditch effort before throwing in the towel

And what are you going to do if that is the case? There is nothing we can do.

Montp have very strong reasons for continuing to support us.

Personally I have full confidence in montp - more importantly DR does.

[moira under the stairs]

And what are you going to do if that is the case? There is nothing we can do.

Montp have very strong reasons for continuing to support us.

Personally I have full confidence in montp - more importantly DR does.

Couldn't agree with you more.... I admit I sometimes feel uncomfortable not having any news from MontP.. but there is probably good reason why we don't... It's could be a case that some have already sold their soul to the devil, made a deal and forwarding any information that is passed out... but then again this epic farce would make the reasonable paranoid.

[BrilloPad]

Couldn't agree with you more.... I admit I sometimes feel uncomfortable not having any news from MontP.. but there is probably good reason why we don't... It's could be a case that some have already sold their soul to the devil, made a deal and forwarding any information that is passed out... but then again this epic farce would make the reasonable paranoid.

I would love to know how HMRC are getting their hands on montp letters. I doubt it forms part of any deal though.

But even montp's staunchest supporters have to admit they are very very bad at communication.

[Ganimos]

and that simple truth is that the law was changed in 2008 and included a retrospective element. Thats been known and written about since day one. Whats truth got to do with anything ? Its being treated with fairness that we want !

Have your rant!!

You say " and that simple truth is that the law was changed in 2008 and included a retrospective element. Whats truth got to do with anything ?"

Well........

Isn't that the simple truth we need to get out into THE WHOLE OF THE COUNTRY?

You also say
"Its being treated with fairness that we want"

You asked what truth has to do with it?
I ask whats fainess go to do with it?

The law isn't justice. It's a very imperfect mechanism. If you press exactly the right buttons and are also lucky, justice may show up in the answer. A mechanism is all the law was ever intended to be.

We need to 'sing from the rooftops' about retrospection press the right buttons and get lucky with the law

We WILL prefail. The truth ALWAYS does.

CALM DOWN !!

[javadude]

I've finally finished and sent an email to my MP. At least taking a while meant I was able to mention Mr Gauke's change of position as mentioned in his replies to letters. The buck passing between him and Justice Parker is farcical.

[Ganimos]

I would love to know how HMRC are getting their hands on montp letters. I doubt it forms part of any deal though.

But even montp's staunchest supporters have to admit they are very very bad at communication.

THAT'S a very very good question.

[Retro]

THAT'S a very very good question.

Normally by the time I get a letter from Montpelier, I've already read it via this forum.

[BrilloPad]

Normally by the time I get a letter from Montpelier, I've already read it via this forum.

You may have read the salient points - but not the detail. Anyone posting the detail I would hope the mods would delete the post and ban the poster.

Mod note: provided it gets reported so we don't miss it, we would.

[VictorValiant]

A Different Angle to Consider

As well as speaking to my MP direct on our situation I considered there was maybe some merit on also discussing our case with a Tax Solicitor and duly sent her a copy of the tax planning arrangement and supporting paperwork. Her initial response is uneexpected but of interest nevertheless : I have precis'ed the gist of her e-mail: as follows:

" I have looked at the papers which you sent through and it appears to me that the scheme which you implemented is the same as the scheme which was the subject of the Huitson case, which related to a human rights challenge against Section 58 FA 2008 which legislated retrospectively against the scheme in question. As you know, the human rights challenge to the validity of the legislation was dismissed and the court of appeal has refused leave to appeal the decision. On that basis, it seems to me that the only way to challenge the assessments which have been raised would be on the basis that the effectiveness of the scheme which you implemented was not affected by the amendments made by Section 58 FA 2008,. This point does not seem to have been raised in the course of the litigation in relation to the human rights challenge. "

Now under normal circumstances I would have expected MP to have looked into this avenue of approach but, given the focus on the HR issue, are we certain that this is indeed the case?