Hoey - Court of Appeal legal fees

[eek]

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

I said I hoped there is 1 as Lancashire lost due to a very broad interpretation of what an asset is (there was a right transferred that had a value) while Hoey’s win is based on a very narrow definition of asset (actual money).

given Lancashire used a broader definition and that was also an appeal case my fear and suspicion would be that the broader definition is used and HMRC will win TOAA on that point alone

[Saleos]

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.

You cannot see how that decision was decided? Because if the income was already that of Mr Hoey (as earnings) it couldn't ALSO be income of the person abroad.

But two further points. It was decided as a fact. You can only appeal points of law not fact (despite HMRC's best efforts to the contrary in the UT). Secondly IF you are right you have directed hundreds of people to a firm whose whole argument also fails.

[Saleos]

I said I hoped there is 1 as Lancashire lost due to a very broad interpretation of what an asset is (there was a right transferred that had a value) while Hoey’s win is based on a very narrow definition of asset (actual money).

given Lancashire used a broader definition and that was also an appeal case my fear and suspicion would be that the broader definition is used and HMRC will win TOAA on that point alone

You completely misunderstand the issues and what was decided.

Under the ToAA provisions it was accepted (and is established law) in Hoey that the transfer of the asset abroad was the entering into of the employment contract. Not the movement of money. Lancashire & Hoey differed on the facts - Lancashire dealt with the DTT scheme and involved partnership income; not employment. So they did not seek to rely on the RFC/earnings argument (that the income was already that of the individual and not of the person abroad). Under the ToAA the person with the "power to enjoy" that income can be taxed on it - but if, as it was held as a FACT, in Hoey, that income is nil.........

Now the published BG strategy takes the Lancashire factual matrix (partnership & self-employment) and adds an preliminary argument to try to bring those cases within the same situation as Hoey. That those who had claimed self-employment were really employed all along. And that those "earnings" were, under RFC, always those of the individual. This is clear from the BG newsletters of Feb & April 2019.

So this shows, again, the importance of Hoey to those clinging to the BG strategy. Rather than try to distinguish it they must actually argue that it is on all fours with Hoey. It will be HMRC that argue to the contrary.

So far all the points you make suggest that you do not understand the issues, do not understand the BG resolution strategy, but have nevertheless used this forum as an exclusive recruitment platform for it. indeed.

[eek]

You cannot see how that decision was decided? Because if the income was already that of Mr Hoey (as earnings) it couldn't ALSO be income of the person abroad.

But two further points. It was decided as a fact. You can only appeal points of law not fact (despite HMRC's best efforts to the contrary in the UT). Secondly IF you are right you have directed hundreds of people to a firm whose whole argument also fails.

I can see why the Hoey decision was reached (a narrow view of what an asset is) and I also can see why there is differences between Hoey and Lancashire - I just suspect that were the Lancashire (holistic approach) to be considered (and it may have already been argued in the unpublished appeal) - Hoey loses. Equally Lancashire already shows that it will require a very narrow definition of what an asset is for TOAA not to apply - and I just cannot see HMRC accepting such a narrow definition in the future.

As for your other comment - give me other options or answer the requests for advice from new posters with HMRC enquiry issues yourself.

I'm getting fed up with people who have all completely failed to answer the question - give me / us other options and we will signpost people to them. Everyone attacking me for signposting people towards WTT have completely and utterly failed to come up with another option or firm we can point people to.

[eek]

So far all the points you make suggest that you do not understand the issues, do not understand the BG resolution strategy, but have nevertheless used this forum as an exclusive recruitment platform for it. indeed.

I don't recruit for WTT - I signpost people towards WTT as no one has comes up with other options and the previous other options are for the X time not available anymore.

So again please suggest names of companies we can point people towards.

And I hope you have evidence that WTT are paying me money as that is what you are claiming...

[eek]

Under the ToAA provisions it was accepted (and is established law) in Hoey that the transfer of the asset abroad was the entering into of the employment contract. Not the movement of money. Lancashire & Hoey differed on the facts - Lancashire dealt with the DTT scheme and involved partnership income; not employment. So they did not seek to rely on the RFC/earnings argument (that the income was already that of the individual and not of the person abroad). Under the ToAA the person with the "power to enjoy" that income can be taxed on it - but if, as it was held as a FACT, in Hoey, that income is nil.........

Now the published BG strategy takes the Lancashire factual matrix (partnership & self-employment) and adds an preliminary argument to try to bring those cases within the same situation as Hoey. That those who had claimed self-employment were really employed all along. And that those "earnings" were, under RFC, always those of the individual. This is clear from the BG newsletters of Feb & April 2019.

So this shows, again, the importance of Hoey to those clinging to the BG strategy. Rather than try to distinguish it they must actually argue that it is on all fours with Hoey. It will be HMRC that argue to the contrary.

So far all the points you make suggest that you do not understand the issues, do not understand the BG resolution strategy, but have nevertheless used this forum as an exclusive recruitment platform for it. indeed.

After 14 pages - an explanation in plain English on what half the (TOAA) case is actually about and how it would impact the people you are asking for money from.

If only you had posted that on page 2 rather than the incomprehensible diatribe you put there.

[ns1]

To settle the argument once and for all

Graham will be along later to outline in broad terms what the WTT approach is.

And, most importantly, what differentiates it legally from Hoey.

I therefore suggest everyone calms down and waits to hear what Graham has to say.

[GoneSurfing]

To settle the argument once and for all.

You're optimistic!

[luxCon]

Appeal to MODS

++++ APPEAL TO MODS ++++

One poster seems to be dominating this tread flooding it with what surely is ego based and argumentative posts.

Could I please appeal to Mods to clear this thread, and keep it to its original intend, targeted at PRE DR (2010) OPEN/Protected Year EBT users

The thread aims to inform and appeal for contributions from those who WILL DIRECTLY BENEFIT as described.

Yet its hijacked, as always resulting in 14 pages of arguments and massaging ones ego

[eek]

++++ APPEAL TO MODS ++++

One poster seems to be dominating this tread flooding it with what surely is ego based and argumentative posts.

Could I please appeal to Mods to clear this thread, and keep it to its original intend, targeted at PRE DR (2010) OPEN/Protected Year EBT users

The thread aims to inform and appeal for contributions from those who WILL DIRECTLY BENEFIT as described.

Yet its hijacked, as always resulting in 14 pages of arguments and massaging ones ego

Only because I wanted a clear explanation in none legal terms that your average poster could understand.

Which we finally have for the TOAA side of things on page 14 after 8 pages of me asking for it.