Hoey - next steps

[Saleos]

I’ve no wish to waste anyone’s time or money (I suspect I’m alone in working on this for free!) in arranging a (virtual) meeting at which only one side brings anything of value.

The parties attending need to have faith that the others actually bring something to the table. You already know Rory’s arguments & have criticised them, but are stuck with them unless you persuade Hoey to step aside. I’ve called on you to explain what your “other weapons” are and why they would make any difference at all (because if it isn’t clear, neither I nor anyone else I’ve spoken to, think your arguments as we understand them, would). But perhaps we haven’t understood them fully. They are, after all, better hidden than Saddam’s WMDs.

I am inviting you to take an opportunity to prove me, and others, wrong & to potentially help thousands. But it is not just me you have to convince of your bone fides.

I’ve repeatedly asked you to give a straight forward answer to a simple question which goes to the very heart of whether or not you have anything at all to offer to the views that have already been exchanged. Once you answer it I’m very happy to commit my (free) time and to ask others to do so.

All I have seen so far is obfuscation and dancing around the elephant in the room. That won’t bring a major international law firm and Counsel to a meeting. So please do email to me - or go straight to Hoey’s lawyers - I’m happy to drop them a quick email explaining where we are at - with your straight forward answer to a simple question (I’m not asking for access to Counsel’s opinion - just an answer) and if it is convincing it will be enough to persuade others to sit down with you for a fuller exchange of ideas.

Is that a yes to a meeting or a no?

I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say "former Counsel" and "current Counsel"?

We have used the same Counsel since the beginning and have recently asked another Counsel to join us.

I'm also unclear why I would lay out my skeleton arguments in public prior to a hearing? Did you do that with Mr Hoey? If not, why am we being asked to?

I do have your email address. What I don't have is any trust in material being treated in confidence. Professional people don't have to like each other (although I stress that I have no personal bias here) but it is expected that we respect each other. I regret that being targeted on social media has rather dented that respect.

Therefore I suggested the meeting between our respective teams.

Yes or no?

[Iliketax]

It will be hard for HMRC to argue that a non UK employer with a PAYE scheme reference which and remitted funds to the UK Exchequer, could be somehow excluded from liability by virtue of a discretion.

I don't want to get involved with elephants but I was wondering about this bit. When I read it, I assume that there was a typo but maybe you think not. How can a non-UK employer who operates PAYE on a voluntary basis have a PAYE liability in the first place?

We think it obvious that any transaction chain involving the flow of funds to a contractor, involves more parties than just the end client. Usually flows begin with the end client but then goes on to encompass, agency (sometimes more than one), promoter or party working for the promoter, some form of third party – often more than one entity – and then the contractor.

Why then limit the PAYE source argument to just one of those?

I didn't understand why you thought that the point had been limited either (with my emphasis from Higgs):

26. Mr Gordon criticised the fact that HMRC had, in his submission, expressly restricted the exercise of its s.684(7A)(b) discretion to the end-users. This was inapt because the obligation to operate PAYE would not have fallen on those end-users but on one or more of the UK entities higher up in the contractual chain. It followed, he said, that the purported exercise of discretion by HMRC which took effect only on other entities could not prevent the availability of the PAYE credit to the appellants.

83. I do not agree with Mr Gordon’s submissions (summarised at [26]-[27] above) concerning the subjects of the s.684(7A)(b) and the necessary notice: the subject of the discretion, i.e. “the payer” as described in that section has a naturally wide meaning and may refer to any person within the ambit of the discretion. That includes the appellants and it is not restricted to the “end users”.

What am I missing?

[Iliketax]

I agree with earlier poster that Phil M warned all about this a long time ago and was hounded out of here for speaking the truth.

I didn't know he had been hounded out of here. If he has though, would Insella have been a reason? Ex-tax inspector offers advice on offshore schemes | Business | The Times

[cojak]

I didn't know he had been hounded out of here. If he has though, would Insella have been a reason? Ex-tax inspector offers advice on offshore schemes | Business | The Times

The unofficial CUK motto:

Nunquam obliviscar Nunquam propitius eris - Never forget, Never forgive.

[Where did it all go wrong]

I didn't know he had been hounded out of here. If he has though, would Insella have been a reason? Ex-tax inspector offers advice on offshore schemes | Business | The Times

Considering Phil clearly proved to all that he never stood to make a penny from Insella and was simply offering advice on it when asked - which is obviously his job to offer advice when asked (including evidencing this to the APPG which is why they in turn wrote to Hammond about it evidencing such) then to answer your question - No, I don't imagine that was the reason.

[DealorNoDeal]

If webberg really doesn't have anything then he won't be able to keep the smoke and mirrors going forever.

Of course, if he's getting £18+vat from several hundred BG members every month, I can see why he might try.

Cynical, moi?

[Iliketax]

Considering Phil clearly proved to all that he never stood to make a penny from Insella and was simply offering advice on it when asked

Sorry, I didn't see that. I just saw the video on the website.

[ns1]

If webberg really doesn't have anything then he won't be able to keep the smoke and mirrors going forever.

Of course, if he's getting £18+vat from several hundred BG members every month, I can see why he might try.

Cynical, moi?

It's hardly going to make him a fortune is it?

Even if there were 1000 of us still paying, which I doubt, it would only be 18k a month or 200k a year. After Graham, Rhys & Co's salary, expenses and overheads, there can't be much left over.

For me, it's been worth it for the advice and support over the past few years. Graham has also done a lot for the campaign against the LC.

[bobbydazzler75]

Its remarkable what lengths he will go to avoid answering questions. I note the dreadful maths of ns1 also.

Firstly there are 3k people in BG which means they make over 50k per MONTH. They've been running it for 3 years and also that's before they start on the 'joining fee'.

Add it together we have millions. And again....ask yourselves....what has Webber ACTUALLY delivered apart from years of false hope and now when queried on technicalities runs for the hills. Just like he did before.

[dammit chloe]

Its remarkable what lengths he will go to avoid answering questions. I note the dreadful maths of ns1 also.

Firstly there are 3k people in BG which means they make over 50k per MONTH. They've been running it for 3 years and also that's before they start on the 'joining fee'.

Add it together we have millions. And again....ask yourselves....what has Webber ACTUALLY delivered apart from years of false hope and now when queried on technicalities runs for the hills. Just like he did before.

I would like to not have to agree but sadly I do. Shame, there is a lot of knowledge in that company but the reluctance to fire any shots made me sceptical.

Which is why I commend Saleos, despite his historical involvement, for his direct, action-oriented approach.