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

[DonkeyRhubarb]

thanks DR, and do we know timelines for adjudicator consideration and decisions?

There will be some more info on it in the next NTRT newsletter which is due to be sent out on Friday.

[bigdug]

news from IOM

MONTPELIER, JONES, MORRIS, GITTINS / 12 December 2013 / STAFF OF GOVERNMENT (APPEAL DIVISION)
Isle of Man Judgments Online

[BrilloPad]

MONTPELIER, JONES, MORRIS, GITTINS / 12 December 2013 / STAFF OF GOVERNMENT (APPEAL DIVISION)
Isle of Man Judgments Online

So Montpelier lost against Alan Jones?

[TAF4]

So Montpelier lost against Alan Jones?

That's not quite how I read it Brillo.

Looks like Mr.G caused AJ to run up costs of c.250k and Morris(?) around 300k then he folded his hand and walked away.

Meanwhile he blames Hector's illegal raid on the MP offices for causing the bankruptcy of that business so he can't pay any costs himself.


Reading the judgement isn't easy so if I have it wrong can someone correct my summary?
Thanks

[BrilloPad]

That's not quite how I read it Brillo.

Looks like Mr.G caused AJ to run up costs of c.250k and Morris(?) around 300k then he folded his hand and walked away.

Meanwhile he blames Hector's illegal raid on the MP offices for causing the bankruptcy of that business so he can't pay any costs himself.


Reading the judgement isn't easy so if I have it wrong can someone correct my summary?
Thanks

Exactly.

Like the judgements against Huitson. Why can't they just say "why don't care if you are right. just suffer and squeal like a piggie"?

[the great escape]

HMRC coughs up

...recent and interesting
Tribunal orders HMRC to pay taxpayers

[Cantthinkof1]

Happy 2014! ...

Let us hope that this year brings us some good news.
(DR, sent you a private message, hope it made some sense)!!

[PlaneSailing]

Gauke, go on then...

US tech firms make eleventh-hour attempt to halt tax avoidance reforms | Business | The Guardian

So Google pay about 1 percent tax. From my reading of Guake's letters, that must surely fit the 'wholly exceptional' criteria. Why not make a retrospective change? I can't see why not, after all that would surely be discriminatory....

[elpinar]

have i missed something ?

i thought we had been turned down the right to appeal .....

[QUOTE=DonkeyRhubarb;1869223]Obviously it's impossible to say for certain but I think it's very unlikely HMRC would be in a position to enforce collection this year.

Firstly, there has to be a full hearing of the Huitson and Shiner appeals at the FTT. The courts are backed up and the cases haven't even been listed for hearing yet. I'd say it was 50/50 as to whether the cases will be heard this year.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

i thought we had been turned down the right to appeal .....

Obviously it's impossible to say for certain but I think it's very unlikely HMRC would be in a position to enforce collection this year.

Firstly, there has to be a full hearing of the Huitson and Shiner appeals at the FTT. The courts are backed up and the cases haven't even been listed for hearing yet. I'd say it was 50/50 as to whether the cases will be heard this year.

The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal the Judicial Review of the retrospective legislation. But this is a completely separate legal process than the tax tribunals (FTT).

Both Huitson and Shiner have appealed their closure notices to the FTT, and it is these pending tribunal cases which are deferring collection. That's why HMRC are not banging on our doors demanding payment.