Hoey - Court of Appeal legal fees

[starstruck]

Can you point to any post where I defend Big Group? All I have done is point out that attacking it isn't the best way of encouraging members of it to contribute to the case.

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

[Saleos]

I don't see the disparity - what I said was if you want people to give you money you need to explain to them exactly why you should give them money - and that because the people you are asking aren't tax experts you need to explain it in very simple terms and being blunt even you next sentence is too complex for the people you are appealing to here.

And the thing is most people spend money to make problems go away - so they pay BG the joining fee and the monthly fee and that's enough for them - because having paid that money they don't see the need to spend time trying to grasp the details - the payment removes any requirement for them to read and understand the actual detail. Now we can all argue or agree that such an approach is insane but regardless of that - most people will be paying BG money to avoid reading the detail.

Which is why I asked for the explanation because everyone here is starting from the assumption that they are asking for money from people who understand why it's so important while I'm working from the basis that you are asking for money from people who haven't got a clue why this case is at all important.

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?!

[eek]

That post was made, in the necessary reasonable detail. Unfortunately tax is more complex than it should be and arguments pro/con don't generally make easy reading. However, I believe to the best of my understanding, Hoey has to be won and if won will shutdown HMRC's arguments on most, if not all, pre-2011 DR schemes. Even the other two cases ( higgs + 1 other ) will likely follow in Hoey's wake.

Yes there is a dearth of decent tax advisors, they are all a bit slippery and some are very slippery. However, I may not want to have a drink with Saleos but I do believe him on the facts pertaining to where we are now.

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.

[eek]

as a pure contractor or was one this thread needs to come with a health warning.

I never realised there were so many tax advisors or more apparent people on the sell side with skin in the game on this site. I use to think apart from a few that most were just plain ole contractors like me but with a bit more tax knowledge.

I think CUK should consider flagging all accounts as either say Advisor or Conractor so mere mortal can start to understand.

This thread from a simple minded contractor has descended into something of absolutely no use btw

There is only 1 advisor left on this forum - webberg. And even here posts far less often on here than he used to because of the attacks on his company.

Other advisors are usually obvious as their company will be obvious within their poster name (see LucyClarityUmbrella, DolanContractorGroup even Ian Richardson GT Leeds)

What this thread really consists of is a number of people pinning their hopes of hoey taking pot shots at a group (Big Group) they have grown disillusioned with while I'm trying to get them to remove the insults and just explain why it's the case is so important in a way those who haven't paid attention to the details will understand.

[eek]

Yes, in response to all your posts defending them. And I would argue sharing a real world experience is not "insulting" it is giving an honest piece of feedback; albeit with some personal opinion predicated with comments like "personally".

I've actually been burnt by WTT/BG and Phil Manley, so I feel I have a right to warn people. I've paid them both, what I would consider, lots of money and received nothing of any use in return. What have you paid them for example?

And the reason why they are coming up in this conversation is obvious; because the cases are connected, in that they are based on essentially the same argument. When people post, let Hoey fail, BG will prevail, I feel I should warn that BG is perhaps not going to prevail.

And in a forum full of opinion - didn't Graham say all those times that HMRC won't let open enquiries end after the LC is paid (i.e. join BG/WTT) and now for some HMRC have officially done exactly that. This site is full of opinion so why is yours ok and others not? Why do you feel the need to challenge those that challenge BG?

Can you point to any post where I defend Big Group? All I have done is point out that attacking it isn't the best way of encouraging members of it to contribute to the case.

[eek]

I am not a professional adviser. I am not recommending people to a particular adviser. Have a look around your own vicinity for a local adviser who has good reviews. WTT is certainly not the only one who give a free 30-minute consultation, there are many capable advisers out there. Find someone who you can speak face-to-face and hold to account when you are not getting your moneys-worth.

I also feel supporting Hoey is a sensible strategy at this point, because of the potential of positive fallout should it prevail. At least they have a clearer strategy than some other advisers and a clearly measurable goal with a timescale.

In answer to your question, that was not directed to me. I am unable to recommend a tax firm because I have no experience with any that I would wish to recommend. You don't need to have an answer for every question. I'd rather make no recommendation than a bad one.

And really "WTT will spend 30 mins on the phone", so will most other companies if they think they'll win some business. I spent 30 mins on the phone for free with a specialist in one of the "big 4" that a friend had engaged and they told me much the same as WTT.

So given the problem I presented you with neither of you can give me an answer as to who I / we on this site can point people towards.

In which case I will continue to point people to webberg - and highlight the fact that our "resident" experts even when pushed for recommendations either refused or were unwilling to suggest / offer any other options.

[eek]

I do not intend to insult - but you'll forgive someone who gets absolutely nothing out of doing so from trying to help YOU and others that might read these posts finding this an exasperating experience.

None better summed up than the following statement you make

"you are asking for people without tax and legal expertise who have put their faith in another expert because they don't understand the finer details (and this is not about fine details it's about tiny minutia) to give someone else money as this case will solve all (or at least some of their problems for them). Yet no one has at any point in this thread explained why it's so important in words a none expert can understand. Heck, I've had difficulty working out what the case will decide upon as you haven't explained any of it"

Is this not EXACTLY what BG/WTT have done (and continue to do)? For if that wasn't the case there would be no question that you would understand exactly why Hoey is so important and why, for example, the ToAA provisions are crucial to that. This is not tiny minutia - these are THE fundamental issues That you aren't aware of that very clearly demonstrates that you haven't been given sufficient information on either the issues or their proposed 'resolution strategy' to do anything other 'put their faith in another expert'. And money. Blindly.

And yet despite this forum spending circa 6 years plumping WTT's feathers you set a much higher bar for Hoey despite the fact that is in the public domain; that the FTT decision sets out the key issues, facts and arguments and that we have already had the appeal heard by the UT (which in turn will also publish its decision). Do you not see the disparity?

I don't see the disparity - what I said was if you want people to give you money you need to explain to them exactly why you should give them money - and that because the people you are asking aren't tax experts you need to explain it in very simple terms and being blunt even your next sentence is too complex for the people you are appealing to here.

The thing is most people spend money to make problems go away - so they pay BG the joining fee and the monthly fee and that's enough for them - because having paid that money they don't see the need to spend time trying to grasp the details - the payment removes any requirement for them to read and understand the actual detail. Now we can all argue or agree that such an approach is insane but regardless of that - most people will be paying BG money to avoid reading the detail.

Which is why I asked for the explanation because everyone here is starting from the assumption that they are asking for money from people who understand why it's so important while I'm working from the basis that you are asking for money from people who haven't got a clue why this case is at all important.

[starstruck]

You may not have noticed this (I thought I had made it clear) but the market for tax firms that know the contractor market and are willing to spend time for free initial calls isn't very long and none of you seem able to add to that list - even though I've now asked that 3 times on this thread.

In answer to your question, that was not directed to me. I am unable to recommend a tax firm because I have no experience with any that I would wish to recommend. You don't need to have an answer for every question. I'd rather make no recommendation than a bad one.

And really "WTT will spend 30 mins on the phone", so will most other companies if they think they'll win some business. I spent 30 mins on the phone for free with a specialist in one of the "big 4" that a friend had engaged and they told me much the same as WTT.

[Superfly]

And, clearly neither do you.

All I need is something I can put on a post and say to someone asking about an HMRC letter saying they have been a member of a scheme. And as I'm the only person doing that I will point people in the direction of the one company I know (and can trust) who will organise an appointment for free and explain to them what has happened and what options there are to fix the mess they are in.

Now I don't care what your issue is with WTT but I will emphasis that I asked you the following question

I look forward to your responses and recommendations of other experts you can also find on google who will spend 30 minutes (for free) (this 'free' call is nothing more than a marketing exercise and don't think it is free as you end up paying for it in the long run and then some) telling them what happened and what they need to do to fix it (the answer from WTT is 'join BG').

and I note your complete inability to answer it.

I am not a professional adviser. I am not recommending people to a particular adviser. Have a look around your own vicinity for a local adviser who has good reviews. WTT is certainly not the only one who give a free 30-minute consultation, there are many capable advisers out there. Find someone who you can speak face-to-face and hold to account when you are not getting your moneys-worth.

I also feel supporting Hoey is a sensible strategy at this point, because of the potential of positive fallout should it prevail. At least they have a clearer strategy than some other advisers and a clearly measurable goal with a timescale.

[starstruck]

Instead we have a lot of people insulting WTT, Big Group

Yes, in response to all your posts defending them. And I would argue sharing a real world experience is not "insulting" it is giving an honest piece of feedback; albeit with some personal opinion predicated with comments like "personally".

I've actually been burnt by WTT/BG and Phil Manley, so I feel I have a right to warn people. I've paid them both, what I would consider, lots of money and received nothing of any use in return. What have you paid them for example?

And the reason why they are coming up in this conversation is obvious; because the cases are connected, in that they are based on essentially the same argument. When people post, let Hoey fail, BG will prevail, I feel I should warn that BG is perhaps not going to prevail.

And in a forum full of opinion - didn't Graham say all those times that HMRC won't let open enquiries end after the LC is paid (i.e. join BG/WTT) and now for some HMRC have officially done exactly that. This site is full of opinion so why is yours ok and others not? Why do you feel the need to challenge those that challenge BG?