Hoey - Court of Appeal legal fees

[Saleos]

And finally after 13 pages we now have an explanation of why this case is important..

Because the case is first it will decide two significant points

1) HMRC arguments on their claimed discretion to dis-apply the PAYE regs (s684(7A))
2) the transfer of assets abroad

and unless both go against HMRC the decision will settle things in such a way that it will be impossible to get round the decision.


Failure for Hoey will mean that HMRC will collect tax from individuals (and no one else) for open Pre & Post DR years unless a higher Court overturns the decision of the UT.

The s684(7A) point is this. We (Hoey, Higgs, Lancashire & it is said BG) all accept that the sums ultimately received by the individual (Mr Hoey in this case) were taxable as earnings (citing RFC). But we argue that tax was due from the end user/agency/employer (it matters not which) and that because HMRC failed to assess them they cannot now collect that PAYE from employees. HMRC say they can because they don't need to follow the statutory procedure (Reg 80 + Reg 81) to do so - they say s684(7A) allows them to dis-apply those rules to choose who they get the money from. You will see (I hope) why that would be a fatal blow to the BG strategy (as they have outlined it).

There are secondary arguments around the availability of a PAYE credit which HMRC also say fall away if they have the claimed discretion.

Alternatively or in addition to the PAYE arguments HMRC say that they don't need the PAYE points in their favour because the transfer of assets abroad provisions apply where there was an offshore employer. Those rules would allow HMRC to tax the individual directly on the "income of the person abroad" which the UK individual had the "power to enjoy". That power arising from the receipt of loans.

In Hoey the FTT held that the income of the person abroad was nil. So all that Mr Hoey could be taxed on was nil. That wasn't the case in Lancashire and any 'resolution strategy' that doesn't also deal with the ToAA provisions is dealing with only half the problem.

If the PAYE and ToAA provisions both apply in HMRC's favour they say that they can choose which would apply. Hence it is vital to deal with both.

Decisions of the UT bind the FTT unless the facts can be distinguished. It would be counter productive to distinguish the facts from Hoey (though I am sure HMRC would try) because of the protection the "nil income of the person abroad" finding gives.

If another UT heard the same points of law (however argued) the decision in Hoey would be "persuasive".

If HMRC win and Hoey doesn't appeal HMRC has 12 months to issue a Follower Notice which come with the risk of a significant penalty if you don't take the requisite "corrective action".

Edited to remove all irrelevant BG stuff.

If you're going to "remove all irrelevant BG stuff" off this site you are going to be here a VERY long time.

[starstruck]

And finally after 13 pages we now have an explanation of why this case is important..

Because the case is first it will decide two significant points

1) HMRC arguments on their claimed discretion to dis-apply the PAYE regs (s684(7A))

Sigh ... Saleos said that on Page 2!

EDIT - and you've just copied and pasted what he said on page 11 in some weird now I'm saying it way kind of way. So, are you now recommending people in BG back Hoey? Perhaps you're a cunning plant by Saleos

[starstruck]

And it wasn't poor persuasive skills I was complaining about - it was the lack of any clear explanation as to why the case is important - it's a lot more useful to say how and why Hoey is so important for Big Group rather than just saying - because it is which was the previous explanation.
.

Yes well, except ... Saleos provided a very detailed explanation as to why the case is important on Page 2 on this thread (https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2834721). Many pages before you starting giving him psychology advice on page 6 (https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2836497) and when I look at that page 2 post he doesn't say "because it is" as you claim, he says "...Moreover, for those who have pinned their hopes on the Big Group "resolution strategy" that strategy fails before it has started if HMRC is held to have their claimed discretion under s684(7A)."

[eek]

And finally after 13 pages we now have an explanation of why this case is important..

Because the case is first it will decide two significant points

1) HMRC arguments on their claimed discretion to dis-apply the PAYE regs (s684(7A))
2) the transfer of assets abroad

and unless both go against HMRC the decision will settle things in such a way that it will be impossible to get round the decision.


Failure for Hoey will mean that HMRC will collect tax from individuals (and no one else) for open Pre & Post DR years unless a higher Court overturns the decision of the UT.

The s684(7A) point is this. We (Hoey, Higgs, Lancashire & it is said BG) all accept that the sums ultimately received by the individual (Mr Hoey in this case) were taxable as earnings (citing RFC). But we argue that tax was due from the end user/agency/employer (it matters not which) and that because HMRC failed to assess them they cannot now collect that PAYE from employees. HMRC say they can because they don't need to follow the statutory procedure (Reg 80 + Reg 81) to do so - they say s684(7A) allows them to dis-apply those rules to choose who they get the money from. You will see (I hope) why that would be a fatal blow to the BG strategy (as they have outlined it).

There are secondary arguments around the availability of a PAYE credit which HMRC also say fall away if they have the claimed discretion.

Alternatively or in addition to the PAYE arguments HMRC say that they don't need the PAYE points in their favour because the transfer of assets abroad provisions apply where there was an offshore employer. Those rules would allow HMRC to tax the individual directly on the "income of the person abroad" which the UK individual had the "power to enjoy". That power arising from the receipt of loans.

In Hoey the FTT held that the income of the person abroad was nil. So all that Mr Hoey could be taxed on was nil. That wasn't the case in Lancashire and any 'resolution strategy' that doesn't also deal with the ToAA provisions is dealing with only half the problem.

If the PAYE and ToAA provisions both apply in HMRC's favour they say that they can choose which would apply. Hence it is vital to deal with both.

Decisions of the UT bind the FTT unless the facts can be distinguished. It would be counter productive to distinguish the facts from Hoey (though I am sure HMRC would try) because of the protection the "nil income of the person abroad" finding gives.

If another UT heard the same points of law (however argued) the decision in Hoey would be "persuasive".

If HMRC win and Hoey doesn't appeal HMRC has 12 months to issue a Follower Notice which come with the risk of a significant penalty if you don't take the requisite "corrective action".

Edited to remove all irrelevant BG stuff.

[eek]

I forgot this gem, which may be true, may be lies but either way is totally irrelevant to the conversation. Are we supposed to be impressed? Does this somehow mean your opinion holds more weight than others? You're so critical of what other people say and yet this is the stuff you come up with.

So if you are so concerned about people; desperate to recommend an advisor at all costs - why are you not recommending Saleos and this Hoey case? Why are you instead recommending WTT/BG. I'm finding this really quite curious.

EDIT - rather than focusing on Saleos' poor persuasive skills why don't you provide some of your valuable opinion on the actual topic at hand. Do you think Hoey is worth supporting and if not why? Why do you feel BG/WTT should be supported instead? Actual proper facts please, like I provided.

Starting from the beginning it was there to emphasis why I could spend all day on here trying to get someone to post a decent explanation of what the case was about which people had spent 12 pages completely failing to do while attacking the very people they wanted to encourage to give them money - which was to answer the earlier point that I should be doing actual work (I don't actually need to)

And it wasn't poor persuasive skills I was complaining about - it was the lack of any clear explanation as to why the case is important - it's a lot more useful to say how and why Hoey is so important for Big Group rather than just saying - because it is which was the previous explanation.

Finally how does Hoey and this case help someone who accidentally joined a fake "umbrella" company in 2017 or 2019.

[dammit chloe]

Which is the summary attached to Saleos's explanation that you should be using to ask people to contribute to the fundraising appeal.

And that is where my posting here started off - what should be a short explanation of what the arguments are and why they are important has turned into a 10 page thread regarding who is purest with various sides attacking one another.

The argument is that if you have pre-2010 open years then Hoey will settle your fate IMO. Without a counter-argument given, even if it is internally to BG, then what really can anyone else say.

From what I have seen/heard of court proceedings on tax matters there is no obscure little interpretation of wording that will help because the decisions are more purposive than letter of the law these days.

I have had conversations with all 3 advisors from WTT and their opinions were all different. Very different and very unclear. As for their analysis and strategy it really was a case of "Just trust us, we're tax experts".

Anyone shall say amen on this. I have no skin either apart from my belief that if Hoey fails, so does any following litigation on DR schemes.

[Invisiblehand]

In all these years, the only thing they have to show for all that BG money is the company they have built with it. There seems to be nothing else, at least not that I can see.

Excellent summary.

[starstruck]

Meanwhile I've made £1500 from an automated sideline business

I forgot this gem, which may be true, may be lies but either way is totally irrelevant to the conversation. Are we supposed to be impressed? Does this somehow mean your opinion holds more weight than others? You're so critical of what other people say and yet this is the stuff you come up with.

So if you are so concerned about people; desperate to recommend an advisor at all costs - why are you not recommending Saleos and this Hoey case? Why are you instead recommending WTT/BG. I'm finding this really quite curious.

EDIT - rather than focusing on Saleos' poor persuasive skills why don't you provide some of your valuable opinion on the actual topic at hand. Do you think Hoey is worth supporting and if not why? Why do you feel BG/WTT should be supported instead? Actual proper facts please, like I provided.

[eek]

Err, derr most of this conversation is you defending BG. Anyway, before I made that comment, I went back and read your posts on this thread, which everyone else can do also if they wish.

What you're basically saying is that if you only knew of one hairdresser currently open, you'd recommend them to everyone that asked for a haircut, even if you'd never had your haircut there and also knew of people complaining that they had been there and didn't like their haircut. Further you would criticise those that say they didn't like their haircut because there are no other hairdressers that they could recommend themselves; like that somehow makes the bad haircut ok or invalidates their right to complain.

So let me get this straight ... are you or have you ever been in BG?

EDIT - as an aside I find Saleos' posts very compelling and sorry to all for the huge digression of this thread

Go and read it again - all I see is a bunch of people who wish for BG members to spend money on the hoey court case attacking BG members for being BG members.

As for the rest - give us other companies I can point people to and I will point them to them (personally the fact I can't truthfully say ETC is annoying but I have zero reasons not to point people towards WTT). Or you could post on those threads and explain to them what has happened, and what they need to do to resolve the mess they find themselves in.

And If you want it straight - I never entered a scheme as tax avoidance schemes is a game for millionaires not something to do with the money you need to live on. I merely post here as I had 2 friends who died from the consequences of joining a scheme and would prefer others didn't go the same way.

[eek]

Again, for the umpteenth time, no one is giving me anything. I get zip out of it.

If people really don't understand the issues but have contributed £1,800 plus VAT (or thereabouts) plus £15 a month for a resolution strategy they don't understand, based on arguments they don't know, based on an opinion they haven't seen, and for an outcome that has not materialised over several years, that is indeed insane. The problem with sticking your head in the sand is that it leaves your @rse exposed!

No one should be making significant decisions about life changing sums of money (the tax at stake) without a proper understanding of the issues. Without being able to weigh up the pro's & cons of a particular strategy how can you know which route to pursue? Litigate or settle? Which Litigation? LCL or LCJREU? (which is also rendered pointless btw if HMRC prevails on the PAYE discretion or ToAA points as that would mean the LC isn't needed at all).

Personally I would be deeply uncomfortable with clients making those decisions in the dark. Indeed isn't that the very issue that many claim led them to being here in the first place?!

And neither do I get anything out of this beyond a desire to actually help people out of the mess they are in (and ideally stop other people from joining schemes in the first place which is why I pay attention to them).

But in this case while you may not be getting anything directly out of it, you are asking for money so you really should have a prepared easy to read explanation of what the case is about.

As for the rest - just because you find the idea of spending money without thinking uncomfortable - it's what a lot of people will have done (especially those people who are still paying) - and you only have to look at how most scheme operators work. The first people they turn to when selling their next scheme are the people who bought their last (failed) one