BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[swede]

Ditto

In the unlikely event that HMRC win the SC hearing will they enforce collection while we appeal to Europe? In the likely event that we win the SC hearing do HMRC have ant further way of appealing?

Welcome back - good to have you around again.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

In the unlikely event that HMRC win the SC hearing will they enforce collection while we appeal to Europe? In the likely event that we win the SC hearing do HMRC have ant further way of appealing?

There are lots of permutations...

If we win, HMRC could go to Europe (Strasbourg) but I think that's extremely unlikely.

If HMRC win they may well try to enforce collection. Montpelier have said they will lodge technical appeals in the Tax Courts (tribunal) which would delay this.

Steed/KPMG applied to Strasbourg 2½ years ago. If their application gets accepted then HMRC would probably continue to delay collection.

There is also the PwC (Shiner) case. This could get referred by the Supreme Court to the ECJ in Luxembourg.

[seadog]

There are lots of permutations...

If we win, HMRC could go to Europe (Strasbourg) but I think that's extremely unlikely.

If HMRC win they may well try to enforce collection. Montpelier have said they will lodge technical appeals in the Tax Courts (tribunal) which would delay this.

Steed/KPMG applied to Strasbourg 2½ years ago. If their application gets accepted then HMRC would probably continue to delay collection.

There is also the PwC (Shiner) case. This could get referred by the Supreme Court to the ECJ in Luxembourg.

I suspect that HMRC are more intereseted in winning the 7 year retrospective principle than they are in collecting the bit of tax they will eventually get if they do in fact win this case.

A win will be a very big stick to beat tax avoidance schemes.

[BrilloPad]

Welcome back BP. I hope you will be able to make a positive contribution in the fight to get justice 4 S58.

I hope your jibe that the only way we can win is to bribe the judge was tongue in cheek. If you read the transcripts of both the JR and CoA you will see the reason we lost so far is becuse we lost the argument.

I think TSBT is putting together a document to highlight shortcomings in MontP's submission in the hope it will be passed onto them to up their game.

I read the CoA transcript - I still dont understand how they justify retrospection. It seems they basically said "we can do as we please". And they argued that without retrospective clarification they would have won anyway. Yeah right!

We don't need to bribe the judge - just stop the government from bribing the judges. All we need is for common sense to stand. The higher it goes the more chance there is.

[SantaClaus]

Indeed you were Mr Kissinger! I basically want to be around for when we win. The only way retrospection will fly is if the judges get bribed - the more senior they get the harder it is to do.

Good to see you back Brillo

[swede]

I read the CoA transcript - I still dont understand how they justify retrospection. It seems they basically said "we can do as we please". And they argued that without retrospective clarification they would have won anyway. Yeah right!

We don't need to bribe the judge - just stop the government from bribing the judges. All we need is for common sense to stand. The higher it goes the more chance there is.

Looking on the bright side - statistically the more courts we go to, the higher the chance of success!

[OnYourBikeGB]

In the unlikely event that HMRC win the SC hearing will they enforce collection while we appeal to Europe? In the likely event that we win the SC hearing do HMRC have ant further way of appealing?

Welcome back BP!

[BolshieBastard]

Slightly off topic but I hope people dont mind this question.

I've an interview lined up with an organisation that requires full disclosure which I intend to make. One of the questions is 'Have you been arrested \ investigated by a statutory prosecuting authority eg HMRC' etc, etc.

Now, as someone involved with BN66 I think this qualifies as an 'investigation' even if we havent been arrested. Would people agree?

If so, I want to add a sentence or two to explain this isnt subject to prosecution and is going through the civil courts to test HMRC's position. Anyone suggest a non technical explanation?

TIA

[IH8GordonB]

Slightly off topic but I hope people dont mind this question.

I've an interview lined up with an organisation that requires full disclosure which I intend to make. One of the questions is 'Have you been arrested \ investigated by a statutory prosecuting authority eg HMRC' etc, etc.

Now, as someone involved with BN66 I think this qualifies as an 'investigation' even if we havent been arrested. Would people agree?

If so, I want to add a sentence or two to explain this isnt subject to prosecution and is going through the civil courts to test HMRC's position. Anyone suggest a non technical explanation?

TIA

You're tax return is under investigation by HMRC but nothing else. Can't see that this is something you would need to disclose.

The legal action is between Huitson and HMRC, you are not involved. The outcome of the case will only affect you insomuch as HMRC may either enforce collection of the disputed tax or drop their demand, depending on the result.

[IH8GordonB]

'Have you been arrested \ investigated by a statutory prosecuting authority eg HMRC' etc, etc.

TIA

Also, HMRC can use the courts to enforce collection of a debt just like anyone else, but I don't think that this makes HMRC a "statutory prosecuting authority", could be wrong though.