Hoey - Court of Appeal legal fees

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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)."

[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

[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]

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

Actually, I'd like to know why eek thinks it irrelevant. Lots of BG people read this forum; fact. There appears to be a direct consequence to them if this case fails. Raising the point that this case might affect them is totally relevant. The magic beans are probably irrelevant.

So come on eek, do you recommend BG members back Hoey? Yes or no? And you can't say I don't know or don't have an opinion as that's not what you say when people ask for an advisor

[eek]

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

Nope - just the stuff here that would discourage anyone who is still a member of BG from possibly donating money - which is the point of this. And as you don't know exactly what BG's argument it would be wiser to keep it completely out of the picture.. Win the argument on your own merits not by belittling others.

As for the your post on page 2 - I'm sorry but I didn't see anything in that that was readable by a lay person without a lot of background knowledge. Legal arguments are lovely but will put off the people you want money from as you are starting from a starting point where you have lost your target audience before you began.

As for whether I would give money to the case - I actually think when it comes to court they will decide just enough to make sure HMRC win. Lancashire is a prime example where the original argument was won and then lost on a technicality - I suspect this will be same here. Worse it's possible (as with Lancashire) that unless there is a point of law to argue over there isn't any chance to take this case to the appeal court - it may be that the case has already finished.

[eek]

Actually, I'd like to know why eek thinks it irrelevant. Lots of BG people read this forum; fact. There appears to be a direct consequence to them if this case fails. Raising the point that this case might affect them is totally relevant. The magic beans are probably irrelevant.

So come on eek, do you recommend BG members back Hoey? Yes or no? And you can't say I don't know or don't have an opinion as that's not what you say when people ask for an advisor

Actually what I hope is that BG have that promised ace / get out clause as I suspect Hoey will be lost on ToAA grounds as having compared Hoey with Lancashire I suspect the final decision will be that "the amount of the “income” of Penfolds and Hamilton which was transferred to the person abroad was not nil." I just cannot see how that decision was decided upon given the facts of the case.

[brayveheart]

Actually what I hope is that BG have that promised ace / get out clause as I suspect Hoey will be lost on ToAA grounds as having compared Hoey with Lancashire I suspect the final decision will be that "the amount of the “income” of Penfolds and Hamilton which was transferred to the person abroad was not nil." I just cannot see how that decision was decided upon given the facts of the case.

Thanks for replaying and summarising the main legal arguments and confirming why Hoey will set a precedent for ANY case that follows. The fact that the Hoey case has progressed to the stage that it has with all arguments in the open for everyone to read and understand, is helpful to all.

I'm a little confused by why, after laying out the facts of the Hoey case and it's precedent-setting outcome and impact for BG or others that follow, you then go on to conclude that waiting for a "promised ace/get-out clause" that nobody seems able to explain to anyone is a preferred outcome. The outcome of Hoey will affect BG contributors, who've presumably paid lots of money over an extended period to support litigation that hasn't started. I'm unclear on why other cases managed to get off the ground and proceed whilst BG hasn't but presumably, there's some valid reason(s) behind that.

I have a simple question; if an "ace" does exist, why wouldn't BG members push for the "get out clause" argument to be included in the Hoey case and for some/all of their funds to be used to support that? Resolves matters more quickly rather than have things drag on for years (presumably with penalties building up all the while).

I'm not involved in either litigation directly, though I would benefit from a Hoey win so I've encouraged people to support it as I have myself. I'm really interested to understand what the thought process and reasoned basis for NOT supporting Hoey might be if you've been paying into a war chest waiting for a day in court for years and years.

Thanks