BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[smalldog]

100% agree. Montpelier should have expected Brannigan & Co to be quick off the mark rubbing our noses in it. It's not good that clients are hearing this news from those goons first.

In addition to discussions with Counsel, they are also in contact with PwC and KPMG.

Hopefully we won't have to wait too much longer.

As a guess MP probably didnt expect the goons to move so fast and rather than send out something informing us of the SC decision without any mention of whats next would probably have scared more than reassured. I think they probably wanted to wait until they had a clear plan and wrap it up in one comm.

Their only crime in my view is being beaten to the chase, thats all. Reckon HMRC's motives for being so rapid, (those two words dont generally go hand in hand, funny that they can move quickly when they want too!) was probably to terrorise and hope someone might pay up before MP had even had a chance to formulate a strategy.

[jeanvaljean]

Time for action

If your MP was previously sympathetic to our plight, then, assuming our case is no longer before the courts, they are now at liberty to help.

Previous posters have mentioned David Gauke and John Redwood. Presumably they will be in their constituencies tomorrow - can you get them to help? Please don't leave it for someone else to do.

Also, I can think of at least three MEPs whom I suspect would enjoy highlighting the Huitson case in front of their European colleagues and be unafraid of sticking the boot in to the UK Government and this hideous retropective action: Nigel Farrage, Daniel Hannan and Nick Griffin. Let's not be precious about from where we seek help.

I've already emigrated so I'll need to get my approach to my MEP translated!

[Ganimos]

Interesting thought

On this gloomy morning.......an interesting thought about the way this has been handled by HMRC

Court finds taxpayers can sue HMRC for damages | AccountingWEB

Landmark decision - taxpayers can potentially sue HMRC for damages : SME Blog

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Circular

I've just heard that it's unlikely we will get anything until next week.

Yes it's a poor show from MP but let's not lose sight of the bigger picture. The only thing that really matters is if they come up with the goods.

My hope is that all the various parties will now come together to fight as one instead of doing their own thing.

[smalldog]

On this gloomy morning.......an interesting thought about the way this has been handled by HMRC

Court finds taxpayers can sue HMRC for damages | AccountingWEB

Landmark decision - taxpayers can potentially sue HMRC for damages : SME Blog

I think sitting on this for so long is not providing a "common law duty of care" to the taxpayer as per the examples above. Interesting to see if this is yet another angle we can threaten HMRC with at the tribunal stages. Its all mounting up!!

[Dieselpower]

Oh Dear

I've just heard that it's unlikely we will get anything until next week.

Yes it's a poor show from MP but let's not lose sight of the bigger picture. The only thing that really matters is if they come up with the goods.

My hope is that all the various parties will now come together to fight as one instead of doing their own thing.

DR I too wish to echo the sentiments of many others in praising you for your help here. It is catastrophic news of course, but what would be really helpful, I am sure to many of us, please, is if you could let us have a possible timeframe starting now, going thru to when we are about to be made bankrupt - ie how long do we have?

[Clownfish]

marmiteville

looks like many roads have lead to what is ultimately a dead end.

Now, long since left and living down under. Looking to get some legal advice on any other options.

if anyone is keen to join forces, or can offer advice, pm me.



Thanks for everything DR. you're a champ. Others may like to speak into the mic, but what you say makes us listen. You have been level headed, supportive, and above all informative.

Clownish

[Britspud]

Thanks and Important Questions

I've just heard that it's unlikely we will get anything until next week.

Yes it's a poor show from MP but let's not lose sight of the bigger picture. The only thing that really matters is if they come up with the goods.

My hope is that all the various parties will now come together to fight as one instead of doing their own thing.

DR...another tribute from me for your efforts and keeping us all sane. No blame (or flies) on you :-)

It's dissappointing...but I think many of us were assuming that the HR arguments would fail eventually and were just using the time taken to save up funds etc.

As echoed by others, I'm now most interested in the Tax Tribunal process, and most importantly, how much time this might take.

Will HMRC just issue CNs again, and start the 30 day clock ticking? Do we then appeal them, but on new grounds (i.e. delays and snide tactics of HMRC and complaints re unfair application of interest etc)?

I assume that it will be one tax tribunal against Huitson presumably, and that everyone else will abide by the findings of that hearing?

Thanks again for all your efforts.

[northernSoul]

Montpelier

I don't see a valid prima facie negligence case - if money ends up being paid to HMRC it is because the law was changed after the fact. Where is the negligence? In fact, caveat emptor would apply. I doubt they would be liable for anything in these circumstances - they have no control over what Parliament decides to do. Let's hope that Montpelier decide to continue the case to Europe/TC's.

They are not liable for what parliament has done, but they would be liable for what they advised. For instance, they would have known that retrospective legislation was a distinct possibility, for the simple reason that it had happened before. If they did not specifically advise that there was a clear risk of retrospective legislation - based upon the plain fact of its previous occurrence - then it may be that there was a breach of their obligations to make clear what the risks of your participating of the scheme was. If this was not made clear, and the absence of which led you to sign on the dotted line, then the case in negligence can be made.

[northernSoul]

Personally I am not going down the legal route against montpelier for 2 reasons. Firstly we would lose and I am not throwing good money after bad. Secondly they have stood by us the whole way and show no signs of wavering.

I prefer to sue HMRC - and I expect MP would support us in that. They have lied to parliament and misled us. I still hope you know who will serve time in prison. Though if not I am happy to wait for the afterlife for his retribution.

Actually it was my mistake. You were never in a position to sue HMRC of course, that was your problem. Your only alternatives have been to sue parliament (let's face it, you weren't likely to win that one) or Montpelier (who may or may not be providing you with beneficial advice - see a lawyer first).