Hoey - Court of Appeal legal fees

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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?!

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.