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

[SantaClaus]

In other words HMRC have no case unless they can convince the judges to use purposive interpretation. I hope our barrister was able to quickly counter with the words of Norman Lamont "that is not the committee's main concern". Sadly I suspect not, sign of the times that HMRC even get away with submitting additional evidence on the last day.

Don't forget HMRC lying under oath in court in another FTT case.
Perjury would normally be considered a criminal offence, but the HMRC officer will probably get a gold plated pension.

[BrilloPad]

Amazed the FTTTTTT has been without any word it was coming.

Rumour is that when we lose FTTTTTTTTT, HMRC will not move to bankrupt us.

This is now rumoured to follow the UTTTTT (though obviously subject to change).

A man down the pub told me UTTTTTTdue in November 2015.

All this is conjecture, guesses so subject to change.

I am stunned there is no timetable. At what point will CNs definetly be inforced? No-one seems to know - or if they do they are not saying.

More psychological games from HMRC -

[OneUnited]

Huitson's FTT

Amazed the FTTTTTT has been without any word it was coming.

Rumour is that when we lose FTTTTTTTTT, HMRC will not move to bankrupt us.

This is now rumoured to follow the UTTTTT (though obviously subject to change).

A man down the pub told me UTTTTTTdue in November 2015.

All this is conjecture, guesses so subject to change.

I am stunned there is no timetable. At what point will CNs definetly be inforced? No-one seems to know - or if they do they are not saying.

More psychological games from HMRC -

So I ask again DID I MISS SOMETHING or maybe just BP and I were the only parties not to know about Huitson's FTT.

The bottom line is it doesn't really matter its past but I do think NTRT members should have been informed or at least details should have been posted on the site during January or in a newsletter, of course if I have missed something then I apologize.

[BrilloPad]

So I ask again DID I MISS SOMETHING or maybe just BP and I were the only parties not to know about Huitson's FTT.

The bottom line is it doesn't really matter its past but I do think NTRT members should have been informed or at least details should have been posted on the site during January or in a newsletter, of course if I have missed something then I apologize.

I doubt many of us knew. But who cares?

To me - correct me if I am wrong - I think this will be fought at a legal level now and nothing we can do.

I would like to know when HMRC might start to enforce CNs. Seems to me December this year????

WG has this habout of winning at 10:59:59 and I hope that is the case here. I also hope he will help us sue HMRC for the mental damage they have caused.

[OnYourBikeGB]

I doubt many of us knew. But who cares?

To me - correct me if I am wrong - I think this will be fought at a legal level now and nothing we can do.

I would like to know when HMRC might start to enforce CNs. Seems to me December this year????

WG has this habout of winning at 10:59:59 and I hope that is the case here. I also hope he will help us sue HMRC for the mental damage they have caused.

WG seems to have had quite a few successes recently. He alone must be denting their statistics. For the record, I had no idea either.

I'm still a bit puzzled by the 'purposive interpretation' bit. Has the court accepted that this is how the legislation should be looked at, or have they simply allowed HMRC to request that that is how their case should be viewed and the court allowed it on that basis, and will decide on its appropriateness at a later point? It seems to me that if its the first one, then the FTT is already sweeping away our case. If it's the second, then there's still a chance.

[smalldog]

WG seems to have had quite a few successes recently. He alone must be denting their statistics. For the record, I had no idea either.

I'm still a bit puzzled by the 'purposive interpretation' bit. Has the court accepted that this is how the legislation should be looked at, or have they simply allowed HMRC to request that that is how their case should be viewed and the court allowed it on that basis, and will decide on its appropriateness at a later point? It seems to me that if its the first one, then the FTT is already sweeping away our case. If it's the second, then there's still a chance.

Im quite stunned that something like purposive interpretation exists in the legal system. To me I thought legal meant unless it was absolutely defined accurately in word form then it doesnt matter what you may have meant. Otherwise how on earth does for example contract law work, someone can just say, well I meant it to say this or that. Seems like B*llocks to me and a get out of jail free card for the govt. IF they can use purposive legislation then I dont see a good ending, they can use that to re-interpret anything that doesnt work for them. Its basically retrospective legal argument, saying something different after the fact to re-interpret something written in the past. Jeez gotta love a bit of retro. But hey you never know!

I didnt know about the FTT for what its worth, but as someone has already said so what. Not like I would have been waiting outside in a batman suit, save that for some others on the forum!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Timing of FTT

NTRT only found out a few days before the hearing.

Montpelier hadn't known much longer. Up until the end of December they were still exchanging papers with HMRC and there was no inkling that it was imminent. The whole thing seems to have come out of the blue at very short notice.

Apparently Montpelier did try and persuade the court to delay it until after the Shiner UT in October but, for whatever reason, the court decided it should still go ahead.

[anonymouse]

"purposive interpretation", IR35 & Margaret Hodge

More

[BolshieBastard]

Seriously, are people surprised the gov and hmrc colluded in scheduling this hearing at the last minute with very little notice? Doesnt the fact they tried to introduce substantive evidence on the last day or so not convince you what we are up against?

There's no such thing as a level playing field when you take on the establishment.

As for this "purposive interpretation" must admit Im struggling to get my head around it but travellingknob's explanation seems quite good.

[BrilloPad]

Seriously, are people surprised the gov and hmrc colluded in scheduling this hearing at the last minute with very little notice? Doesnt the fact they tried to introduce substantive evidence on the last day or so not convince you what we are up against?

There's no such thing as a level playing field when you take on the establishment.

As for this "purposive interpretation" must admit Im struggling to get my head around it but travellingknob's explanation seems quite good.

No-one here is surprised.

I think some here wish that NTRT had emailed when they knew - but I don't see the point. This will now be fought on a legal level.

There is nothing we can do - just as well as no-one here wants to get stuck in.

What would be nice is to know when CNs will be enforced. I would love WG to answer that one. If he doesn't know - then just say. Thats okay.

Any advanced notice of UTTTTT would be great. Rumour is Nov 2015.