BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Toocan]

In your dealings with HMRC did you ever find out why this scheme in particular has been targeted for such an extreme action? It's always puzzled me why go after this scheme in this way?

I don't know - but looking at the situation I think it is really a battle between the main scheme organiser and HMRC. The individuals at HMRC who are leading this have lost many cases to the scheme organisers. Their schemes tend to work. HMRC wanted to win this one regardless of the cost.

Do we deserve to be nailed to the cross for the purposes of a few HMRC officer's egos?

Anyone got a better theory?

[ir35amnesia]

Why all the cloak and dagger? I thought Suo Motu and Montpelier schemes were identical?

they were not identical and this is subject to a pending appeal in the IOM.

[Toocan]

they were not identical and this is subject to a pending appeal in the IOM.

That's right, one was called "Suo Motu" - the other was not. Any other differences?!

[cojak]

Right.

If you want to talk about ir35amnesia's scheme, he's been told to create another thread (with information in it, ir35a...)

As you were.....

[PlaneSailing]

I don't know - but looking at the situation I think it is really a battle between the main scheme organiser and HMRC. The individuals at HMRC who are leading this have lost many cases to the scheme organisers. Their schemes tend to work. HMRC wanted to win this one regardless of the cost.

Do we deserve to be nailed to the cross for the purposes of a few HMRC officer's egos?

Anyone got a better theory?

Nope. Sounds about right to me. As for your last post, I didn't realise that Hansard was closed to the court. Yet more fuel for my discussion with my MP.

I admit to feeling slightly better for having done something about this situation. Keep on writing everyone.

[OnYourBikeGB]

I don't know - but looking at the situation I think it is really a battle between the main scheme organiser and HMRC. The individuals at HMRC who are leading this have lost many cases to the scheme organisers. Their schemes tend to work. HMRC wanted to win this one regardless of the cost.

Do we deserve to be nailed to the cross for the purposes of a few HMRC officer's egos?

Anyone got a better theory?

That's what I think do, we're just collateral damage. I have wondered though if it was MP in particular, or the industry as a whole. I see over on the EBT thread, The MP scheme seems to have been targeted again, but there's dozens of similar ones that are carrying on as normal, for now anyway.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

There's no point in looking for meaning.

hmrc2.jpg download

'or must have intended' what the f*** does that mean?!

It means nothing.

It's like 'clarification','under constant review','gives it its effect','wholly exceptional','customer experience'.

It's like 'In deciding whether the public interest favours maintaining the exemption I have taken account of a number of factors.'

Cynical bollocks, the lot of it!

The only meaningful phrase is 'it was the view of HMRC'.

[Toocan]

Nope. Sounds about right to me. As for your last post, I didn't realise that Hansard was closed to the court. Yet more fuel for my discussion with my MP.

It is not completely closed - though not far from it. More information can be found here:

Pepper v Hart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem for us is that it is for Parliament itself to correct a situation where it was misled. The JR simply found that Parliament could pass retrospective legislation and on the "facts" that were presented to the court, they found that to be okay in the case of section 58.

[Dieselpower]

Right.

If you want to talk about ir35amnesia's scheme, he's been told to create another thread (with information in it, ir35a...)

As you were.....

Good call. Thank you.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Reply from my MP

Got a reply from my MP today. Standard fare, he'll pass my concerns onto the Chancellor. A prompt reply at least.