No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008

[Rob79]

Hi Brillo, we are still retaining Whitehouse as a point of contact for our members, but stepping down on the lobbyng in favour of legal action.

I think even with a closed forum, HMRC would still find a way in. We had a troll who was leaking our newsletters to HMRC a while back.

Please forgive the intrusion but I'll offer an objective perspective.

If it is true that the political campaign is in abeyance for now and the focus is on legal action, I think that discussing the elements of that legal position in your own closed forum should definitely happen.

There is a risk that some of it will get out and HMRC might be pre-warned, but to be honest, a legal action will lead to a hearing and an appeal and in the latter at least, all the legal poiojnts will be known to both sides. I'm not entirely sure therefore what is to be lost in airing those ideas and in order to develop them.

And no, I'm not a member of the private forum and not in HMRC.

[BettySwollocks]

Would be a good thing no doubt, only thing is how do you keep it HMRC spy proof?

Could we get MP to confirm scheme membership of anyone who requested to join...? Maybe allow a week or two to get a list together and submit it to them for review...? Alternatively, ask for a scanned copy of correspondance between potential member and MP (although if you're cynical someone could possibly fake that) or a scanned copy of demand for payment from HMRC...?

It should be possible to keep this a closed shop and I personally think the benefits would outway the risks...

[BolshieBastard]

Im not convinced by this closed forum argument.

This is the reason why; The major problem I have with MP's handling of this whole affair is that WG tried to play billy big bollocks with his 'my counsel is better than yours' to HMRC. Every legal argument they came up with, he trumped their position outside of court.

HMRC's counsel clearly took on board his counsel's arguement and realised his position was well founded and defeating this in court would be questionable.

He should of played dumb and said 'we dont agree and we'll see you in court.' I'd love to play poker with him because if he shows his hand this easily, it would be a piece of cake to win every hand.

Now, there's a clear lesson here, you dont show your hand or to be correct, you dont share your legal argument to all and sundry. An outline of policy, direction etc can be discussed but not the detail. That can be done here or via a newsletter. People have got to accept that some stuff, maybe to a greater or lesser degree has to be kept out of the public domain.

I know people want to know what's happening, that's understandable. But, they also need to realise this is a war of attrition. You cannot be open on everything. Policy, yes, legal arguement, no.

[DotasScandal]

Nicely summed up, BolshieBastard!

[OnYourBikeGB]

Im not convinced by this closed forum argument.

This is the reason why; The major problem I have with MP's handling of this whole affair is that WG tried to play billy big bollocks with his 'my counsel is better than yours' to HMRC. Every legal argument they came up with, he trumped their position outside of court.

HMRC's counsel clearly took on board his counsel's arguement and realised his position was well founded and defeating this in court would be questionable.

He should of played dumb and said 'we dont agree and we'll see you in court.' I'd love to play poker with him because if he shows his hand this easily, it would be a piece of cake to win every hand.

Now, there's a clear lesson here, you dont show your hand or to be correct, you dont share your legal argument to all and sundry. An outline of policy, direction etc can be discussed but not the detail. That can be done here or via a newsletter. People have got to accept that some stuff, maybe to a greater or lesser degree has to be kept out of the public domain.

I know people want to know what's happening, that's understandable. But, they also need to realise this is a war of attrition. You cannot be open on everything. Policy, yes, legal arguement, no.

I agree. We have had individuals on this thread who have leaked our newsletters to HMRC. I'd rather be in the dark than risk giving a heads up to HMRC. I don't think there is much to be gained over private conversations between trusted members over open discussion on this thread which carries with it the certainty of HMRC knowing everything we are thinking. I'm not even sure I like the idea of a closed forum, they'll get in somehow. I trust NTRT to represent our best interests and I doubt there's little the rest of us can think of that NTRT don't know already.

[Rob79]

Im not convinced by this closed forum argument.

This is the reason why; The major problem I have with MP's handling of this whole affair is that WG tried to play billy big bollocks with his 'my counsel is better than yours' to HMRC. Every legal argument they came up with, he trumped their position outside of court.

HMRC's counsel clearly took on board his counsel's arguement and realised his position was well founded and defeating this in court would be questionable.

He should of played dumb and said 'we dont agree and we'll see you in court.' I'd love to play poker with him because if he shows his hand this easily, it would be a piece of cake to win every hand.

Now, there's a clear lesson here, you dont show your hand or to be correct, you dont share your legal argument to all and sundry. An outline of policy, direction etc can be discussed but not the detail. That can be done here or via a newsletter. People have got to accept that some stuff, maybe to a greater or lesser degree has to be kept out of the public domain.

I know people want to know what's happening, that's understandable. But, they also need to realise this is a war of attrition. You cannot be open on everything. Policy, yes, legal arguement, no.

I think you'll find that the parties had little choice.

It's usual for there to be a disclosure between the parties of their respective positions and evidence prior to a Court hearing. This allows the parties to agree some or all of the FACTS and those legal analyses that are uncontested BEFORE the hearing starts in order to save the Court time and money. In the course of those exchanges, arguments will come and go as each side seeks an advantage. Only unagreed positions eventually make it to Court.

On the one hand this allows one party or the other to keep certain arguments out of the public forum whilst on the other making the judgment more reliant upon its own facts.

It's not a perfect system and certainly one that can be "gamed" but who are the winners and losers?

[OnYourBikeGB]

I think you'll find that the parties had little choice.

It's usual for there to be a disclosure between the parties of their respective positions and evidence prior to a Court hearing. This allows the parties to agree some or all of the FACTS and those legal analyses that are uncontested BEFORE the hearing starts in order to save the Court time and money. In the course of those exchanges, arguments will come and go as each side seeks an advantage. Only unagreed positions eventually make it to Court.

On the one hand this allows one party or the other to keep certain arguments out of the public forum whilst on the other making the judgment more reliant upon its own facts.

It's not a perfect system and certainly one that can be "gamed" but who are the winners and losers?

Maybe if they put all their discussions up on the web, and send us copies of all their documentation I'd agree. Otherwise it's just us showing them our hand while they keep theirs obscured. We have nothing tactically to gain. Everything I have learnt about HMRC tells me they don't play fair and are never to be trusted.

[SantaClaus]

Maybe if they put all their discussions up on the web, and send us copies of all their documentation I'd agree. Otherwise it's just us showing them our hand while they keep theirs obscured. We have nothing tactically to gain. Everything I have learnt about HMRC tells me they don't play fair and are never to be trusted.

Yep, and don't forget HMRC have redacted many legal documents that they won't let us see.

If there's no harm in seeing both parties legal arguments, then lets see all the redacted stuff too.

[BrilloPad]

I actually want a closed forum to discuss PAST events.

I don't think Whitehouse have done a good job.

I wonder if we just need to wait for WG do whatever it is he will do. The isue I have got is that he does not work fast. But boy does he get results!

I still hope that once he wins he will seek redress from HMRC for the unnecessary hardship they have caused.

[BolshieBastard]

I think you'll find that the parties had little choice.

It's usual for there to be a disclosure between the parties of their respective positions and evidence prior to a Court hearing. This allows the parties to agree some or all of the FACTS and those legal analyses that are uncontested BEFORE the hearing starts in order to save the Court time and money. In the course of those exchanges, arguments will come and go as each side seeks an advantage. Only unagreed positions eventually make it to Court.

On the one hand this allows one party or the other to keep certain arguments out of the public forum whilst on the other making the judgment more reliant upon its own facts.

It's not a perfect system and certainly one that can be "gamed" but who are the winners and losers?

No, you are wrong there as I think you have been on a number of things you've posted in the past.

The point Im making is trumping the opposition side's legal argument outside of court. In what can loosely be called negotiations with HMRC, they asserted several 'facts' to substantiate their position. MP could have simply said, they didnt agree and would argue the point in court. Instead, they showed their hand and all their reasoning why.

HMRC saw this and decided on the balance of probability they might not win so didnt go to court.

At the end of the day, this is only legal 'argument' and not really evidence. Even in a criminal court, there is no requirement to share your legal argument pre trial.