Joint action on APN

[squirrel]

My tax advisor said that the judge at the pinsent case may just say that all APN s are void. But that s hopeful thinking etc etc. if they see a tsunami of APN judicial reviews coming their way matybe

Wishful thinking I know, but if the judge were to say that APNs are void, would HMRC have to then refund the alleged 99% that gave already paid their APNs?

[lilikins1]

Wishful thinking I know, but if the judge were to say that APNs are void, would HMRC have to then refund the alleged 99% that gave already paid their APNs?

That s a really good point. Maybe they ll just let everyone fight their corner and some will win and some will lose. The rich will fight and not pay and the not rich will have to cough up..dunno

[Dylan]

Some have changed their business model - they are now advising on what to do with the new legislation, representing you against HMRC.

With at least 65,000 cases, sounds like a good business plan to me, it's a win, win and win again situation.

In fairness that is no different to the representative selected for this joint action who was involved in the creation of EBT schemes and now seems to have switched to defending them.

[webberg]

The selection of the Ingenious scheme for APN was probably more a result of there being a settlement offer and impending litigation. It was a tactic designed to bully some people these into accepting the settlement.

As to delay in litigation, you have to say that the two sides are as bad as each other.

The latest is that the last few days of the hearing due to be heard in Feb/Mar, missed the dates because HMRC made a veiled reference in their submissions that some senior Ingenious people had been dishonest. Such an allegation cannot be made without there being a right to respond. The balance of the hearing was delayed to allow this matter to be dealt with and a it looks like the hearing will start again in June.

No coincidence that the substantive part of their JR is to be heard at that time as well?

Rumour has it that in an earlier case management hearing, it was confirmed that the penalty for non payment of the APN will kick in at the time stated on the notice, regardless of whether there is a JR waiting to be heard.

[steveb555]

Wishful thinking I know, but if the judge were to say that APNs are void, would HMRC have to then refund the alleged 99% that gave already paid their APNs?

Wishful thinking indeed I fear. Does anyone believe that any judge would have the courage to stand against our establishment in such a way?
I am cynical enough to believe there would be some very powerful 'behind the scenes' activity if that event looked a possibility.

[DotasScandal]

Wishful thinking indeed I fear. Does anyone believe that any judge would have the courage to stand against our establishment in such a way?
I am cynical enough to believe there would be some very powerful 'behind the scenes' activity if that event looked a possibility.

The cynic in me would agree. This is politically very charged. But we've also seen stranger things happen... So keep the faith, everyone! Prepare for the worst but hope for the best.

[lilikins1]

The selection of the Ingenious scheme for APN was probably more a result of there being a settlement offer and impending litigation. It was a tactic designed to bully some people these into accepting the settlement.

As to delay in litigation, you have to say that the two sides are as bad as each other.

The latest is that the last few days of the hearing due to be heard in Feb/Mar, missed the dates because HMRC made a veiled reference in their submissions that some senior Ingenious people had been dishonest. Such an allegation cannot be made without there being a right to respond. The balance of the hearing was delayed to allow this matter to be dealt with and a it looks like the hearing will start again in June.

No coincidence that the substantive part of their JR is to be heard at that time as well?

Rumour has it that in an earlier case management hearing, it was confirmed that the penalty for non payment of the APN will kick in at the time stated on the notice, regardless of whether there is a JR waiting to be heard.

So obviously they did it on purpose. Lovely.

[webberg]

So obviously they did it on purpose. Lovely.

I think not.

I think that in the evidence and cross examination in the first hearing HMRC came close to the allegation and developed it in a later paper. I think this was more about incompetence and clumsy case preparation than anything else.

As to timing of the first batch of APN's? Yes deliberate. Just like demands and notices are always scheduled for a weekend or just before a holiday. Once you understand that is a standard operating process and expected, it robs it of a lot of its power.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Rumour has it that in an earlier case management hearing, it was confirmed that the penalty for non payment of the APN will kick in at the time stated on the notice, regardless of whether there is a JR waiting to be heard.

If this is true then it's something that people, who can pay their APNs, need to seriously bear in mind before participating in a JR. The JR may prevent enforcement but penalties would still be added to your bill.

[flamel]

Yes deliberate. Just like demands and notices are always scheduled for a weekend or just before a holiday. Once you understand that is a standard operating process and expected, it robs it of a lot of its power.

I wonder if HMRC thought they had a really strong case, they would just act professionally in a matter of fact way rather than try and "nudge" people into settling by scaring them with pre holiday/weekend letters?

My wife has banned me from opening any of these letter till after the holiday/weekend in question.