Judicial Review of APN has been requested ...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Did Montpelier run any EBTs - will they be covered by the APNs too?

They replaced the double tax scheme with an EBT in 2008 but I don't think it was registered with DOTAS.

[webberg]

I'm actually gutted as I thought that the judicial review that the film investors were requesting was a review of the actual APN concept. Pinsent were citing Human Rights breach, etc etc

The Finance & Tax Tribunal

Sorry have been away for half term.

DR is correct in saying that you will have to challenge an APN on the grounds that it is not applicable in YOUR circumstances.

There is no sensible way to challenge an Act of Parliament in tax matters. The EU constitution allows each country to apply its sovereign rights to taxation so long as it does not cause unfair competition.

As the attached case shows using non tax legislation to attack tax results sets a very high bar and it would be a very rare thing indeed for such a position to win.

Contact your promoter/provider about a JR action. If they are gone/not interested then form your own group and get advice.

[StrengthInNumbers]

I am not sure if our promoter is going for a JR or not. They have said money best spent on challenging the HMRC point in FTT. So they are spending their own money to go to FTT as they feel we have a strong case instead of going for a JR

Let's see how the situation unfolds.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

You need deep pockets for a JR

Not only to cover your own legal expenses. But, if you lose, you have to pay HMRC's costs as well.

Even if you win round 1 at the High Court, HMRC will probably appeal.

Budget for several hundred £k.

[jbryce]

The Finance & Tax Tribunal

Sorry have been away for half term.

DR is correct in saying that you will have to challenge an APN on the grounds that it is not applicable in YOUR circumstances.

There is no sensible way to challenge an Act of Parliament in tax matters. The EU constitution allows each country to apply its sovereign rights to taxation so long as it does not cause unfair competition.

As the attached case shows using non tax legislation to attack tax results sets a very high bar and it would be a very rare thing indeed for such a position to win.

Contact your promoter/provider about a JR action. If they are gone/not interested then form your own group and get advice.

The applicability of Human Rights to tax is a bit fraught , in the case of S58 HMG introduced legislation, retrospectively, against a single scheme in terms that were specified in an act of parliament. The EU accepts that governments collect tax in order to govern and kind of turns the other way for retrospective laws targeted at specific examples.

In the case of APNs the legislation is being applied, retrospectively, across a wide variety of schemes, with no grounds other than the scheme has a DOTAS number or that HMRC do not like the look of it. Contrast this with the GAAR where at least some specialists will get to look at it, before an APN is issued.

It's all a bit p155 really.

[squirrel]

Not only to cover your own legal expenses. But, if you lose, you have to pay HMRC's costs as well.

Even if you win round 1 at the High Court, HMRC will probably appeal.

Budget for several hundred £k.

Agreed entirely, which is where the whole concept of a judicial review falls down. I thought it was there to protect the little guy from the big guy!

I do hope HMRC are going to audit the accounts of all the tax lawyers that are making millions off the back of this ;-)

[lilikins1]

Wao. So they re going to destroy some people s lives for the next few years without proving anything. Something terrible will happen and it will make the newspapers. I read an article about HMRC getting it wrong with a company got the (administrators?) in sold for super low prices all their assets..then turns out they weren t right and one of the company owners tried to commit suicide.

[DotasScandal]

Wao. So they re going to destroy some people s lives for the next few years without proving anything. Something terrible will happen and it will make the newspapers. I read an article about HMRC getting it wrong with a company got the (administrators?) in sold for super low prices all their assets..then turns out they weren t right and one of the company owners tried to commit suicide.

When you lost everything and have nothing left to lose...you lose it!
I have read about the story you mention - not only did HMRC hound these poor souls mercilessly, but the liquidator lady engaged by HMRC seemed to have been a textbook sociopath.
If there is a God, there is a place ready in hell for those sorry excuses for human beings...

[webberg]

When you lost everything and have nothing left to lose...you lose it!
I have read about the story you mention - not only did HMRC hound these poor souls mercilessly, but the liquidator lady engaged by HMRC seemed to have been a textbook sociopath.
If there is a God, there is a place ready in hell for those sorry excuses for human beings...

This is a very true story. The company recently won a case in Court which allows them to sue HMRC for damages caused by them closing the company overnight (with the loss of 23 jobs) and as you say pushing a director to a suicide attempt.

The judge was super critical of HMRC and the liquidator and has demanded that HMRC look at the conduct of its officers in this case "at the highest level". Having already spent £2.5m of YOUR money defending their action, HMRC now faces damages of perhaps 8 figures (paid with YOUR money).

All very sad and tragic. Will it make ANY difference to HMRC = none at all.

They will write this off as a "learning experience" and an "isolated incident".

Abbey Forwarding Ltd (In Liquidation) v HM Revenue & Customs [2015] EWHC 225 (Ch) (06 February 2015)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

All very sad and tragic. Will it make ANY difference to HMRC = none at all.

Arguably this type of story does no harm whatsoever to HMRC. It enhances their reputation as the big bad wolf and sends shivers down the spine of all taxpayers.