Opportunity to participate in an APN judicial review

[lilikins1]

[QUOTE=DonkeyRhubarb;2075997]

We are trying to confirm this with the QC acting for Ingenious.

The rumour appears to have been started by another QC who seems to have an axe to grind. It could be a case of sour grapes because his outspoken comments on avoidance cases have cost him in the region of £500k in potential fees.

Is this the Maughan guy that was representing Ingenious? (I wonder why he is not representing them anymore)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

? What ?

I think what he means is, if you ended up being asked to pay more than the initial £900, it would be because the JR actually stood some chance of success.

The £900 is just to file the papers, get it stayed behind Ingenious and apply for the court orders to prevent enforcement.

I'd be surprised if it ever got any further than this.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

[QUOTE=lilikins1;2076044]

Is this the Maughan guy that was representing Ingenious? (I wonder why he is not representing them anymore)

I don't think he was ever representing Ingenious. Ingenious' barrister is David Southern QC.

[webberg]

[QUOTE=DonkeyRhubarb;2076047]

I don't think he was ever representing Ingenious. Ingenious' barrister is David Southern QC.

I thought it was David Milne QC?

Certainly Maugham has never been in the main action

[lilikins1]

[QUOTE=webberg;2076054]

I thought it was David Milne QC?

Certainly Maugham has never been in the main action

He could be in the 'I lose therefore I hate' line

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I thought it was David Milne QC?

Certainly Maugham has never been in the main action

I suppose there may be more than one QC but we had an email from Pinsent saying they were using David Southern.

[webberg]

I suppose there may be more than one QC but we had an email from Pinsent saying they were using David Southern.

http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financea...Ors-v-HMRC.pdf

In this hearing it was definitely Milne.

Southern is being used in the JR I think but not the hearing which I understand might now restart in June.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financea...Ors-v-HMRC.pdf

In this hearing it was definitely Milne.

Southern is being used in the JR I think but not the hearing which I understand might now restart in June.

Yes I was referring to the JR, not the tax appeals.

[ads1980]

http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financea...Ors-v-HMRC.pdf

In this hearing it was definitely Milne.

Southern is being used in the JR I think but not the hearing which I understand might now restart in June.

I must admit, I was intrigued to read this article but it's way over my head.

[webberg]

I must admit, I was intrigued to read this article but it's way over my head.

HMRC, when they cross examined the Ingenious directors, said that the illustrations in the marketing material were manipulated in order to show that the partnership would make a profit. Those manipulations of the numbers were such that the directors must have known they were so unlikely as to amount to being a dishonest attempt to mislead. Such misleading figures were also proof that the partnerhsip could never make a profit and was therefore not trading.

The allegation that these people had been dishonest in this way was not put explicitly but rather implied. The HMRC barrister (Gammie QC) fell short of confirming that this was a line HMRC wanted to follow, but did not rule it out either.

When the hearing was paused (ran out of time) the Judge wanted the parties to summarise their positions in writing before the hearing resumed. HMRC made the implied charge of dishonest behaviour in their written submission.

Ingenious' team said that such allegations could not be made without the facts being put to the individuals so that those people could produce rebuttal evidence. (A proven charge of dishonest behaviour has implications beyond tax and natural justice says that they must have the right to reply). The produced several grounds as to why the hearing could not go ahead until this matter was resolved.

All but one of those grounds was rejected. However the Judge said that the natural justice point was enough to allow the hearing to be stayed until either HMRC made the allegation explicitly and gave the individuals time to respond or the allegation was withdrawn.

Result. Continuation of hearing now delayed until June and further written submissions to be made.

For the record, the Ingenious people strongly deny the allegations.

So we have I think 4 or 5 QC's, plus junior counsel, plus lawyers, plus Civil Service time, plus the Court time, the Judge's time and 8 or 9 empty court days to be paid for BECAUSE HMRC were at best clumsy and at worst incompetent in how they dealt with this issue.

This is also the latest distraction in getting a decision on Ingenious. The whole enquiry and hearing process has been littered with disputes on side issues and procedure. Allied with HMRC's usual pace of business, it means that a scheme (I use the word generically with no prejudice implied) which took people's investment in March 2006 is unlikely to get to a FTT decision until 10 years after. A Supreme Court decision if it goes that far, perhaps 5 years after that.

Unacceptable.