Hoey - Court of Appeal legal fees

[dammit chloe]

Because we don't have any other options and I personally think it's better to sign post desperate people somewhere rather than not offering any help at all.

After all look at this thread - it should contain a simple explanation of the Hoey case, why it's important, what points it will decide and from that what schemes will be impacted by the decision. Given that information it would be possible for people to read a single post and decide whether it's worth contributing or not.

Instead we have a lot of people insulting WTT, Big Group and it's members and when I started to point that out the same posters decided to start attacking me instead - heck even though all I've done is point out that insulting the people you want money from may not be the best idea and asking questions to get elaborations on why the case is important. And even when we start to get those elaborations they are attached to insults and irrelevant (to the Hoey appeal) questions that merely reflect a certain set of posters hatred of Webberg and WTT.

And very quickly the questions get ignored while the irrelevant attacks continue

Meanwhile I've made £1500 from an automated sideline business (see why I don't have an incentive to make sales calls) and the fundraising total has increased by precisely £0.

Being blunt the people on this site trying to get people to donate money to the Hoey case are their own worst enemies - stop attacking WTT and explain in simple terms what the Hoey case will determine and why it is so important.

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.

[starstruck]

Because we don't have any other options and I personally think it's better to sign post desperate people somewhere rather than not offering any help at all.

After all look at this thread - it should contain a simple explanation of the Hoey case, why it's important, what points it will decide and from that what schemes will be impacted by the decision. Given that information it would be possible for people to read a single post and decide whether it's worth contributing or not.

Instead we have a lot of people insulting WTT, Big Group and it's members and when I started to point that out the same posters decided to start attacking me instead - heck even though all I've done is point out that insulting the people you want money from may not be the best idea and asking questions to get elaborations on why the case is important. And even when we start to get those elaborations they are attached to insults and irrelevant (to the Hoey appeal) questions that merely reflect a certain set of posters hatred of Webberg and WTT.

And very quickly the questions get ignored while the irrelevant attacks continue

Meanwhile I've made £1500 from an automated sideline business (see why I don't have an incentive to make sales calls) and the fundraising total has increased by precisely £0.

Being blunt the people on this site trying to get people to donate money to the Hoey case are their own worst enemies - stop attacking WTT and explain in simple terms what the Hoey case will determine and why it is so important.

In my opinion, you're recommending people join a scheme that will cost them lots of money and likely not succeed. I would argue that is a worse outcome than recommending nobody at all. Or you could simply advise them to "seek professional advice". After all, that's what webberg himself always does (what he really means is "come join WTT/BG").

I've been on this forum for around 20 years - I changed my username when all this LC stuff hit - the reality is it provides a platform for people to generate income from contractors. Put in the time posting as Phil and Webberg do/did and you'll gain a lots of business. The whole WTT business is founded off CUK members. CUK do well also, the discussions bring traffic and ad revenue. Let's just say it as it is.

I would personally never recommend a company without a positive experience with them personally for a similar issue - so tell me, what did WTT/BG do for you that warrants you recommending them?

Personally the only advisor I respect on here now is ILikeTax. He often seems to slam dunk the others arguments and isn't on a fishing trip for new clients.

[eek]

You still don't get it do you? Regardless of how other advisers are helping (or, not helping) clients, why should people go to WTT when they have also been equally sterile, inert and fruitless in their approach to resolving legacy tax issues that they promised their clients.

Do people go to WTT because everyone else is doing nothing so go to WTT, who will also do nothing and charge £15 + VAT for the privilege??

Why should people go to WTT? What are they doing? Is it so secretive that even their clients don't know.

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) telling them what happened and what they need to do to fix it.

and I note your complete inability to answer it.

[lowpaidworker]

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

[Saleos]

For we - assume myself and the mods on this site.

As for the rest - 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.

And at long last in that post you are finally starting to explain things in a way that I think people may be able to understand. Now it's still not clear enough (and the personal insults are getting beyond annoying) so perhaps you could explain to others why HMRC are trying to tax individuals directly without recourse to their PAYE arguments.

Throughout all this I'm merely trying to get you to do what you should have done here in the first place - which is to assume people have zero knowledge and provide an explanation in very simple terms on why they should be giving this case their money. And until now you've completely failed to do that.

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 will however try to spell it out as simply as possible.

Hoey deals with open Pre DR years.

But IF HMRC prevail in their arguments on their claimed discretion to dis-apply the PAYE regs (s684(7A)) or the transfer of assets abroad, the BG strategy fails immediately - because its arguments will no longer be enough to prevent HMRC going directly to the individual for the tax which it claims (and the BG strategy accepts was due).

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".

Ultimately whether you believe in magic beans or not the truth is that the BG strategy is entirely reliant on the points of law being argued in Hoey. They may have other arguments but if Hoey fails they have a mountain to climb and HMRC will use Follower and Accelerated Payment Notices to take money from those involved long before they got anywhere near the top.

It is in everyone's interest (but HMRC!) for Hoey to prevail and everyone in BG suffers if it fails.

IF WebberG disagrees let him explain here in detail why.

I am being entirely transparent on the issues and have no personal skin in this game. It is high time others followed suit.

[eek]

In my opinion, you're recommending people join a scheme that will cost them lots of money and likely not succeed. I would argue that is a worse outcome than recommending nobody at all. Or you could simply advise them to "seek professional advice". After all, that's what webberg himself always does (what he really means is "come join WTT/BG").

I've been on this forum for around 20 years - I changed my username when all this LC stuff hit - the reality is it provides a platform for people to generate income from contractors. Put in the time posting as Phil and Webberg do/did and you'll gain a lots of business. The whole WTT business is founded off CUK members. CUK do well also, the discussions bring traffic and ad revenue. Let's just say it as it is.

I would personally never recommend a company without a positive experience with them personally for a similar issue - so tell me, what did WTT/BG do for you that warrants you recommending them?

Personally the only advisor I respect on here now is ILikeTax. He often seems to slam dunk the others arguments and isn't on a fishing trip for new clients.

Um I tell people to speak to Webberg as currently we have no one else we can signpost people with letters from HMRC to talk to. 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.

And as with Superfly I eagerly await you answering those posts from new posters as they arrive telling people that, yes the letter is real, yes you have been tricked, yes HMRC are right in saying that you will need to pay the tax you haven't paid (oh and that the loan is actually a loan and may need to be repaid) and these are the people you can turn to for advice.

Because at the moment while you may dislike webberg, they do actually pick up the phone and spend 30 minutes explaining exactly that to the people you turn up here - and no one else does that.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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.