Hoey - Court of Appeal legal fees

[Fred Bloggs]

Nope SteveMatch is a pseudonym for someone working for a different company that begins with the letter F (I can't be arsed to keep hiding the fact given the other games that company have been playing). Etc seem to have acted as a foil for them discouraging people from accepting the settlement offers so that they can now present demands for full payment - what I can't work out is why Etc acted as said foil.

As for the rest of your post - you need to check your reading comprehension skills - I post here to avoid things I don't want to do. And this week I have to do things (selling) that I hate doing - so I post here instead to kill time.

On the assumption that ETC Tax is an otherwise reputable company, and given the corkscrew like tactics displayed by protagonists throughout these sorry episodes - Perhaps ETC Tax may have been misled into doing something? Disclaimer, I know nothing about this company.

[eek]

SteveMatch was with Etctax.

But why in this world filled with nests of vipers where nobody cares about anyone else do you feel that you have a God-given duty to rescue all these poor people who have been embroiled in past tax arrangement mistakes? It does make people wonder of your motives.

Instead of spending hours and hours on this forum, why don't you go to work during the day, or is being on this forum part of your work?

Nope SteveMatch is a pseudonym for someone working for a different company that begins with the letter F (I can't be arsed to keep hiding the fact given the other games that company have been playing). Etc seem to have acted as a foil for them discouraging people from accepting the settlement offers so that they can now present demands for full payment - what I can't work out is why Etc acted as said foil.

As for the rest of your post - you need to check your reading comprehension skills - I post here to avoid things I don't want to do. And this week I have to do things (selling) that I hate doing - so I post here instead to kill time.

[eek]

An explainer:

Earlier decisions don't "narrow down the final arguments": each Court decides the application of the law based on the facts of the case. A higher court binds a lower one unless the facts can be distinguished. The "arguments" are really no more than how each sides presents its case on how the law applies. Once the Court gives its decision that is the law until or unless it is overturned by a higher authority.

Put simply you might argue something is red. I might argue it is blue. We might both give long and expert argument on why we believe that and each refer to extensive case law (often different paras within the same case, or take a different view of what a case meant) but ultimately the Court's job is to tell us both what colour that thing is. If it says it is purple it's purple until a higher Court says otherwise. Now someone else might think - well I would have quoted different cases, or argued the law differently, but that doesn't matter. It's purple until a higher court says otherwise.

Look at the facts as decided by the FTT in Hoey. The FTT held that Mr Hoey did not have a tax avoidance motive AND that the income of the person abroad (for ToAA) purposes was nil. Contrast the latter with Higgs & Lancashire for example. These were both helpful. It is hard to see what fact pattern might be better. Perhaps you could enlighten us all?

And on the relevant points of law it is imperative that everyone understands that if HMRC prevails on s684(7A) ITEPA it doesn't matter how you present the arguments in the FTT that HMRC doesn't have that discretion; what polish you add, or new gloss you might put on it, the point of law will have been decided by higher authority. The FTT wouldn't be able to reach a different conclusion. Another UT would find it persuasive. So you're left with needing to take a case to at least the Court of Appeal. And absent an appeal in Hoey (if HMRC win) you'd have a Follower Notice long before you/BG get a case anywhere near the Court of Appeal.

Furthermore, if the discretion exists as HMRC argue that not only scuppers pre-DR cases but sinks the BG post DR case before it even starts.

There is, after all, little point in arguing (however it is argued) that the sums received were earnings all along and should have been taxed by the employers (as BG's 'resolution strategy' very explicitly says it relies) if HMRC simply has the discretion to dispense with the PAYE code (as it has tried in Hoey) to collect those sums from the employee anyway. This point really isn't that complex. You must be able to see it, even through rose tinted spectacles?

So whatever magic beans are being hidden from view for apparent fear that someone else might "take the glory" now is not the time to keep them in the shade but to let them into the sunlight and water them. If they exist.

You can't help the insults can you?

But I'm at a loss as to who was abroad here - Steven Hoey was working in the UK - why is the fact income under ToAA is zero so important?

And actually this is my point here - I've just spent 30 minutes reading Lancashire & Ors v Revenue & Customs (it will be useful for the scare stories I need when I set salesman talking to agents but nowhere near as useful as Revenue & Customs v Opus BestPay) but no one here has clearly set out why this case is so important.

Now I know why it is (having dragged my brain through both judgments) but if you want people to give you money you need to explain what makes it so important so that people can see why it directly applies to them.

[Superfly]

Nope - I'm usually here as I'm avoiding doing something I don't want to do (which today is calling umbrella firms and flogging them a new service).

And I actually don't like any tax adviser firm but given that every other one has fallen by the wayside, we are literally left with recommending WTT because ETC have seemingly completely screwed up anyone they "helped" with Felicitas (hmm I wonder why Steve Match recommended them so much), and exactly what did happened to the previous great white hope on this forum a certain Mr Phil Manley?

Basically the entire Tax avoidance industry is a nest of vipers that people have got involved in due to a combination of greed and a desire for a quick fix while ignoring difficult questions and answers.

Oh and would you care to guess who Steve Match actually worked for...

SteveMatch was with Etctax.

But why in this world filled with nests of vipers where nobody cares about anyone else do you feel that you have a God-given duty to rescue all these poor people who have been embroiled in past tax arrangement mistakes? It does make people wonder of your motives.

Instead of spending hours and hours on this forum, why don't you go to work during the day, or is being on this forum part of your work?

[eek]

To his credit, Eek does slip in a criticism of WTT every now and then to maintain the ruse.

He is on this forum far too often with his benevolence imparting casual neutral tax and contract law advice.

Reminds me of SteveMatch as his posts had a strong bias running through them tilted towards a certain adviser.

I used to wonder whether Eek was actually Tom Wallace

Nope - I'm usually here as I'm avoiding doing something I don't want to do (which today is calling umbrella firms and flogging them a new service).

And I actually don't like any tax adviser firm but given that every other one has fallen by the wayside, we are literally left with recommending WTT because ETC have seemingly completely screwed up anyone they "helped" with Felicitas (hmm I wonder why Steve Match recommended them so much), and exactly what did happened to the previous great white hope on this forum a certain Mr Phil Manley?

Basically the entire Tax avoidance industry is a nest of vipers that people have got involved in due to a combination of greed and a desire for a quick fix while ignoring difficult questions and answers.

Oh and would you care to guess who Steve Match actually worked for...

[Saleos]

Beyond the fact I'm not anyone sales or marketing team - I think your responses tell me all you need to know

Good luck insulting people while seeking to get money off them - that's working wonders.

But I had thought it was well known that HMRC ensure the cases they believe are easier wins are heard first as it narrows down the final arguments.

An explainer:

Earlier decisions don't "narrow down the final arguments": each Court decides the application of the law based on the facts of the case. A higher court binds a lower one unless the facts can be distinguished. The "arguments" are really no more than how each sides presents its case on how the law applies. Once the Court gives its decision that is the law until or unless it is overturned by a higher authority.

Put simply you might argue something is red. I might argue it is blue. We might both give long and expert argument on why we believe that and each refer to extensive case law (often different paras within the same case, or take a different view of what a case meant) but ultimately the Court's job is to tell us both what colour that thing is. If it says it is purple it's purple until a higher Court says otherwise. Now someone else might think - well I would have quoted different cases, or argued the law differently, but that doesn't matter. It's purple until a higher court says otherwise.

Look at the facts as decided by the FTT in Hoey. The FTT held that Mr Hoey did not have a tax avoidance motive AND that the income of the person abroad (for ToAA) purposes was nil. Contrast the latter with Higgs & Lancashire for example. These were both helpful. It is hard to see what fact pattern might be better. Perhaps you could enlighten us all?

And on the relevant points of law it is imperative that everyone understands that if HMRC prevails on s684(7A) ITEPA it doesn't matter how you present the arguments in the FTT that HMRC doesn't have that discretion; what polish you add, or new gloss you might put on it, the point of law will have been decided by higher authority. The FTT wouldn't be able to reach a different conclusion. Another UT would find it persuasive. So you're left with needing to take a case to at least the Court of Appeal. And absent an appeal in Hoey (if HMRC win) you'd have a Follower Notice long before you/BG get a case anywhere near the Court of Appeal.

Furthermore, if the discretion exists as HMRC argue that not only scuppers pre-DR cases but sinks the BG post DR case before it even starts.

There is, after all, little point in arguing (however it is argued) that the sums received were earnings all along and should have been taxed by the employers (as BG's 'resolution strategy' very explicitly says it relies) if HMRC simply has the discretion to dispense with the PAYE code (as it has tried in Hoey) to collect those sums from the employee anyway. This point really isn't that complex. You must be able to see it, even through rose tinted spectacles?

So whatever magic beans are being hidden from view for apparent fear that someone else might "take the glory" now is not the time to keep them in the shade but to let them into the sunlight and water them. If they exist.

[Superfly]

Is it

a) that one has already been to the FTT & UT whilst the other is nowhere to be seen?

b) that the arguments for one are known (and in the public domain) but in the other are a secret (even from those paying for them)?

c) that funds raised for one aren't invoiced nor have VAT added, but the other does?

d) that if there is any surplus contributions or if litigation does not proceed the contributors, rather than shareholders, get the excess?

e) all of the above.

I look forward to the BG sales and marketing team on CUK responding. Don't let me down Eek.

To his credit, Eek does slip in a criticism of WTT every now and then to maintain the ruse.

He is on this forum far too often with his benevolence imparting casual neutral tax and contract law advice.

Reminds me of SteveMatch as his posts had a strong bias running through them tilted towards a certain adviser.

I used to wonder whether Eek was actually Tom Wallace

[eek]

I think the GoFundMe is meant to be an additional route to funding on top of the Litigation Association that's funded matters to date. Therefore, the GoFundMe total isn't representative of any funding gap that may exist.

I would encourage people to seriously consider supporting Hoey, including those whose litigation hasn't yet started. The outcome is likely to have a significant impact on any and all cases that follow.

Once again, in what way, what avenues does it cover and close off?

[brayveheart]

And once again another post that really won't help your desire to raise more money.

Mind you sitting on £5000 with a target of £250,000 really isn't the best way to raise money - you should start with achievable targets and point out where the other sources of funding are coming from. At the moment that fund isn't going to pay out a penny as it's not going to get anywhere near the desired target (as the continual attacks and insults on here aimed at the only people likely to contribute to the fund makes very clear).

I think the GoFundMe is meant to be an additional route to funding on top of the Litigation Association that's funded matters to date. Therefore, the GoFundMe total isn't representative of any funding gap that may exist.

I would encourage people to seriously consider supporting Hoey, including those whose litigation hasn't yet started. The outcome is likely to have a significant impact on any and all cases that follow.

[eek]

Is it

a) that one has already been to the FTT & UT whilst the other is nowhere to be seen?

b) that the arguments for one are known (and in the public domain) but in the other are a secret (even from those paying for them)?

c) that funds raised for one aren't invoiced nor have VAT added, but the other does?

d) that if there is any surplus contributions or if litigation does not proceed the contributors, rather than shareholders, get the excess?

e) all of the above.

I look forward to the BG sales and marketing team on CUK responding. Don't let me down Eek.

Beyond the fact I'm not anyone sales or marketing team - I think your responses tell me all you need to know

Good luck insulting people while seeking to get money off them - I can see it's working wonders for your campaign - as you have raised less money than I made in 2 days this week.

But I had thought it was well known that HMRC ensure the cases they believe are easier wins are heard first as it narrows down possible conversations - and with this case in progress HMRC will be delaying all others until there is an actual determination that can be used.

And finally, could you actual answer Stonehenge's question - as it would be useful to have a clear explanation of what arguments are being settled by the Hoey case?