BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Doug1965]

HMRC deals

I will wait and see what MP say but for me now I would like MP to enter into some negotiation with HMRC and see if we can get a deal on reducing the interest and come up with some payment plans.

I can understand that, almost feel the same myself. Nobody can predict if HMRC will allow a payment plan/deal on interest or if they go for the kill and demand everything up front. You may not be the only one, so will be interesting to see what happens.

Good luck.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Ha Ha ! That actually made me laugh, even after the news.

You know that saying: 'she would light up the room as she walked in'? - you must be the opposite of that.
What a joy you must be to have around the house

Folks, this is not an easy time for any of us, but can we try and give a little slack to each of us here? Now is not the time for in fighting. Hard to do but let's try and refrain from knee jerk reactions against other Forum members. There's a lot of feelings out there understandibly but getting "stuck in" is not the right use of the already stretched Forum Web servers.

[BolshieBastard]

I know some of you are now ready to fight on to the SC but personally I think such a route is just drawing out the inevitable, 4 judges now ruled against us so I cant see how the SC would do any different.

I will wait and see what MP say but for me now I would like MP to enter into some negotiation with HMRC and see if we can get a deal on reducing the interest and come up with some payment plans.

I can't put my family through another year+ of this.

Good Luck to those with the stomach for a further fight.

100% agree with you. People should look to temper all this blind optomism that a judgement in our favour is only the next court hearing away.

I appreciate some people are in to the hilt so see this as nothing to lose in financial terms. But to me, the worry, stress and this thing just hanging over you for 10 years is a monkey that needs getting off our backs.

We've been sold a pup by MP who incidentally, will come out of this cheme with lots of money. And if people think MP's reputation will be damaged by this, think again, we're just one small part of their customer base.

Anyhow, gauke and his cronies arent going to save us, HMRC are laughing as they read these posts and frankly, the judiciary were never going to overturn 'parliament's' will on a budget finance bill.

Time for MP to put the feelers out and sort this into two groups, those who'd consider figting on (good luck to those who go this way but I suspect your health and happiness will suffer) and those wo'd consider a negotiated settlement.

MP owes us all that whatever your view of the rights and wrongs of BN66.

[Slobbo]

Didn't the IR35 fight do badly until the Supreme Court?

The big IR35 case was lost in the High and CoA courts was it not? They eventually won it in the Supreme (or what ever it was called back then) did they not?

[IH8GordonB]

I will wait and see what MP say but for me now I would like MP to enter into some negotiation with HMRC and see if we can get a deal on reducing the interest and come up with some payment plans.

Understand this is tough, but I can't see how MP can fight in the courts on the one hand (assuming they appeal to the SC), and try and negotiate a settlement for some clients on the other. Surely it would weeken any case for MP to be seen to be supporting a settlement when they are making the legal claim that no tax is due.

[seadog]

The Court did not answer the key question

The big IR35 case was lost in the High and CoA courts was it not? They eventually won it in the Supreme (or what ever it was called back then) did they not?

You are corect the Arctic case went all the way to HoL

It seems on first reading that they are not answering the right question.

To my non legal mind if HMRC knew about this loophole pre 2001 and decided it could not be stopped. i.e. see TN63, then how can it be right to allow it to go on for 7 years before taking any form of action to test it in the tax courts and then to pull the tax court cases and mislead parliament onto passing retrospective legislation.

Nether the JR or the CoA have answered that question.

Lets hope the SC or ECHR can answer the question

The fat lady has not stopped singing yet.

[OnYourBikeGB]

The big IR35 case was lost in the High and CoA courts was it not? They eventually won it in the Supreme (or what ever it was called back then) did they not?

Arctic Systems and Section 66 maybe? We need to know the detail of the judgement.

BB is right, HMRC will be having a laugh at us if we swing too baseless optimism or pessimism. At the moment, it's not looking good, but it may not look as bad as it did after Parker. When we get the statement, we'll know better. Until then, let's keep our feet on the ground.

[elpinar]

agree that it would seem to weaken their case .... plus, surely HMRC would just say that you had a tool to stop the interest at any time (CTD) but if you chose not to take it why should they now give a deal on interest .......

[Emigre]

Hi Guys

I was in Court this morning together with three or four others.

For each of the cases, LJ Mummery simply stated:
1. Appeal/case dismissed
2. Huitson leave for Application for Appeal extended till Friday
3. Costs to HMRC

Shiner's team made a detailed request to the CoA for them to allow the appeal to the SC but were slapped over the wrists for the application ("It's not for the CoA to decide what the SC looks at").

Copies of the judgements in both Huitson and Shiner were handed out. I have copies of them, they will be available on Baillii this afternoon. There is a lot to read. I have read Huitson so far.

The decision was unanimous. However, the opening line of the judgement reads "This is a very unusual income tax case". That is because it is. The wording of the Huitson judgment is very supportive of Parker (unless they disagree, it is protocol to do so). However, having read it and seen the body language of the LJ I sensed that the CoA accepted that it is beyond their pay grade to challenge the apparent intent of Parliament as set out in S58.

There was also complete acceptance by Mummery that both cases would be appealed.

Yes, we could sit here and look at it and say that 4 judges have ruled against us or we could be more circumspect and say that perhaps the legal grounds are not so clear cut that they feel confident in crossing that line. From day 1 the legal teams have always said this case will end up in the Supreme Court or beyond. Today was nothing more than the completion of step 2.

It was good to catch up with those there. See you again in 15 months.

[screwthis]

Option 1. Attempt settlement - Haven't seen a settlement proposed/accepted yet and not sure why they would need to go down that route as no doubt they feel we are finished. I would consider this if a deal was on the table.

Option 2. Go for another 3 year appeal, put the money in Gold and hope for continued low interest rates and hyperinflation both of which are more likely than not.

If we had won I would have paid down my mortgage but as I need to keep the money liquid I am going to attempt to invest to return above 2.5%. I doubt Gold will not be 2.5% per annum higher in 3 years time. It's a punt but option 3 (pay up) is game over.