BIG GROUP

[Iliketax]

I have no skin in this, but you might want to think about how the results for one group change the dynamics for the others.

To keep the numbers simple. Let's say you get an equal number of people for two separate schemes. They all pay monthly and plan to pay £200,000 per year over four years. Let's say one of these is to do with EBTs. Just as the case goes to the FTT after two years and cost 50% of the expected total (say £400,000 of costs out of £800,000 expected for both schemes). So the first two years' money effectively spent on the EBT scheme. As luck would have it, at the same time the Supreme Court hears the appeal of the Court of Sessions on Rangers and says Rangers loses. The FTT says, sorry, but you lose too because the Supreme Court is boss. All the EBT people then leave the group and stop paying.

So the remaining 50% then have to fund 100% of the second case.

So those who are in the EBT group pay £200,000 of their £400,000 costs and those in the second group have to pay £600,000 to get their case heard. That doesn't seem fair.

Now in real life there may be synergies, not all the money will be spent on the first case, you are planning four separate schemes, etc. But unless you do something to address it, it still goes back to those that remain effectively pay more than those that leave early.

[StrengthInNumbers]

It is all a game of chance and people will have to take the risk. What if Supreme Court says ranger lose but only because of side letters?

But from the other side I don't really know how the group is going to be able to busy up HMRC resources and how the details of scheme will be found out. Paper and money trail existed between set of companies and trusts and courts will like to see that. Without promoter and access to trustees how will the group get that info?

[MercladUK]

Is the idea being proposed covering post 2011 schemes?

[dangerouswhensober]

To those who viewed this thread over the last 24 hours ...

Firstly - I apologise in advance for the length of this post, but I think a few things need to be said.

It's very encouraging to see that 15 people have pledged, on the first day, to pay £50 to start the ball rolling.

Just for clarity, I make those people to be (in no particular order):

linuxcat regron LandRover
dangerouswhensober MercladUK DotasScandal
squirrel StrengthInNumbers convict
jcb78 Sky Rocket ads1980
flamel Scruff jbryce
costo

But it's also a bit surprising that there were over 1,200 views of this thread, yet only these few have pledged to go forward.

At the moment, this project is at the 'Proof Of Concept' stage. If the Big Group doesn't achieve a certain critical mass within a short time then it will not be able to go forward. (I'd say around 100 members within a month, but that's just my opinion). So any discussion of 'what happens if half the group drop out when a case is lost' is, IMO, a little premature. There will be no cases to drop out of if there aren't enough subscribers. Of course strategic issues should be discussed, but only the appropriate time.

In my experience, there are always many reasons not to do something (e.g. this bad thing might happen, or that terrible thing might happen, or we might make this mistake, etc) but the good reasons to do a thing will always remain until the thing is done. So I would suggest that we ignore what 'might' go wrong, focus on what we are immediate objectives, pledge the £50 and see what happens.

Also, everyone should bear in mind that the pledge of £50 is, right now, exactly that - a promise to pay this amount at a date in the future (possibly soon) if certain conditions are met. It's not a promise to stuff a crisp £50 note in an envelope and mail it first thing on Monday morning. Personally, I would favour that nobody should send any money until the pledged membership has reached a certain level (IMO 100), just to ensure that the project will go to the next stage and the money won't have to be returned (which would be inefficient & tedious administration).

To all those people who have viewed this thread and (so far) decided not to participate, I'd suggest that you read through to the end of this email, then review the other mails on the thread (especially the proposals from Webberg), and then think for a day or two. If you decide definitely not to join, please let us know why - that info will be useful for us, as it will help us identify people who may and may not want to join in the future.

[BYW - I'd just like to repeat that it's a mutually-agreed principle that this group's future actions should not impinge on any other legal actions we may each be planning to take].

Now in relation to how the current Settlement Offer might affect decisions to join ...

(A) To those people who have already settled:
I wish you well - I'd guess you are sleeping a little easier - and, to be honest, I'm slightly envious. You must be aware that you have no chance of getting your money back, and you will have already written that money off. But - if you would like to have the chance of a little revenge on the Goverment and HMRC for their appalling bullying, then keep monitoring these boards - the opportunity to join will (I would guess) stay open for a good while. (But please also read to the end of this email).

(B) To those people who are intending to settle (and have the means):
Once again, I wish you well. We already know that the fight will be long and hard, and this will not suit some people - everyone is of different temperament. But you should also bear in mind that what you think is a 'settlement' is not necessarily final in the eyes of HMRC - they may come at you again with some further assessment for those same periods which you think are settled (e.g. for NI or Inheritance Tax) - especially if they are allowed to change tax rules again. Also, the comments in (A) above apply as well - you are being bullied into settlement, and, in the long run, there is only one successful way to react to bullying.

(C) To those people who are intending to settle (but don't have the means):
If you are currently negotiating or intending to negotiate a 'time-to-pay' arrangement with HMRC, then, once again, I wish you well. Even if I could, I personally would not want to spend the next few years living in penury when I know I have done nothing wrong - it's rather like serving a jail sentence when you know you are innocent. I'd rather fight to change the questionable system that sentenced me. Again, it's a personal choice - but I sincerely suggest you review the posts in this thread and consider joining this group - HMRC are going to want a lot more than £50 from you.

(D) To those people who are not intending to settle (because they don't have the means, or for any other reason):
(BTW - the 'straw poll' on these boards over Xmas indicates that this group comprises fully two-thirds of the people who will receive APNs - but it was a small sample). I freely admit I'm in this group - I don't have the means - and a 'time-to-pay' agreement for me would have to be a LOT longer than two years even if I found such an agreement acceptable. It's been said many times in many other places that, on APNs, the Government and HMRC have made a bad strategic mistake by backing people into a corner where they have no option but to fight. Well, if thousands of people all have no option but to fight, then those thousands will pretty soon realise that we will achieve more if we fight together (with apologies to Maximus Decimus Meridius) rather than individually (which is what the Government & HMRC would much prefer). So to all those people in the same position as me, I say 'why not pledge £50 now and see what happens over the next few weeks ?' - at the very worst, at present you could lose £50 - and you might gain a lot more than you lose - given the determination and expertise which has been expressed so far.

There are two final reasons why (I believe) as many people as possible should join this long-term group - and they are both related to the actions of our political leaders in devising and initiating this persecution. The first is this:

Both of the main political parties have made a very big noise about 'cracking down on tax avoidence and evasion'. They are effectively demonising individuals (and companies) who have done nothing more than obeyed the law as it stood at that time - and they have (deliberately) whipped up public sentiment against those individuals and institutions for their own purposes - in many cases using nebulous and emotive phrases and questionable facts and numbers. Well, 155 years ago the philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill wrote the following words as part of his essay 'On Liberty':

"There needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them."

Sound familiar ? The political parties are at present encouraging (even promoting) the "tyranny of the prevailing opinion" for their own purposes - and these are supposed to be the leaders of our country !!! If leading thinkers recognised a long time ago that this behaviour was bad for freedom and democracy, then I think it's a very sad comment on the general quality of our politicians that they even countenance this behaviour today. This group could, if big enough, make these views known - please think about that ...

The second reason is stated below (as always) ...

[thecolour]

I'm in, but let's face it this is no pledge

If we're going to do this, then why not use one of the pledging platforms like gofundme or kickstarter to get this off the ground. Let's face it, the only thing which can effectively fight this is cold hard cash.

[z4thras]

count me in

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Let's face it, the only thing which can effectively fight this is cold hard cash.

Yes and lots of it.

Fortunately there are lots of you so it only takes a small contribution from everyone to amass a substantial fighting fund.

The future is in your hands.

[webberg]

Yes and lots of it.

Fortunately there are lots of you so it only takes a small contribution from everyone to amass a substantial fighting fund.

The future is in your hands.

Thanks for the activity here.

I'll be back here in a couple of hours and will (unfortunately for you) try to deal with some of the questions and hence monopolise the thread for a while.

Great to see activity though and DR says - being in control of your own destiny is better than relying on others, no matter how helpful they've been to date.

[jbryce]

I have no skin in this, but you might want to think about how the results for one group change the dynamics for the others.

To keep the numbers simple. Let's say you get an equal number of people for two separate schemes. They all pay monthly and plan to pay £200,000 per year over four years. Let's say one of these is to do with EBTs. Just as the case goes to the FTT after two years and cost 50% of the expected total (say £400,000 of costs out of £800,000 expected for both schemes). So the first two years' money effectively spent on the EBT scheme. As luck would have it, at the same time the Supreme Court hears the appeal of the Court of Sessions on Rangers and says Rangers loses. The FTT says, sorry, but you lose too because the Supreme Court is boss. All the EBT people then leave the group and stop paying.

So the remaining 50% then have to fund 100% of the second case.

So those who are in the EBT group pay £200,000 of their £400,000 costs and those in the second group have to pay £600,000 to get their case heard. That doesn't seem fair.

Now in real life there may be synergies, not all the money will be spent on the first case, you are planning four separate schemes, etc. But unless you do something to address it, it still goes back to those that remain effectively pay more than those that leave early.

If HMRC win at the Court of Session then they will instantly try and state that it applies to other EBT cases, if they lose - they'll dismiss the relevance.
Arguably, neither Boyle or Rangers give a definitive steer on EBTs.

Personally I'm happy to contribute a small amount and, if it gets spent on someone else's case, then so be it. If we had done this a while back, HMRC may have been tempted to make the settlement offer a little less cr@p.

[webberg]

I'm in - and its a brilliant idea,


Call me a sceptic but webberg - whats in it for you? it doesn't sound like your caught up in this? I'm totally ok with someone taking a margin on this as long as its clear that is the case? In fact it probably would help having someone impartial at the healm.

I have not hidden the fact that I run a commercial business that specialises in tax dispute resolution.

What's in for me is an opportunity to earn some fees doing just that.

I will put up my plan for doing this (and fees) to the eventual steering group and take my chances with any other firms invited to tender.

My business runs groups of people fighting tax cases. As such I have various written constitutions and other material that may help.

You have touched upon the value an independent person brings - somebody paid to run an operation should be able to d a better job than a voluntary group fitting it in around the day job.