BG - WebberG farewell. Right to reply.

[malvolio]

For someone who has no skin in this game in any shape or form, it is in fact you who is most disruptive, creating arguments and spinning a negative angle on most comments.

The Mods should identify this type of destructive activities and weed them out.

A forum of any sort is for the benefit its users, not the professionals, experts, advertisers and etc. So why dont you leave these threads to those that are directly affected and stop your destructive behaviour which in my humble opinion comes from no other than a lonely, grumpy, bored, old man syndrome who has a need to stick a nose in to every conversation.

People's mental health, finances, family live and children's future are dependant on these cases, and you stirring up and creating division is way out of order.

People have commited suicide and so please stop creating division.

Yeah, yeah, been hearing that line for several years now. Pointless since we all are well aware of the very real damage this whole issue is causing and obviously we all sympathise with the many people it has affected.

But that's not what we are discussing in this thread.

Incidentally there is a thread asking for who best to turn to for advice. After 8 pages of "discussion" it can be summed up in this post.

[DealorNoDeal]

And I've not seen any evidence why the Hoey case will be allowed to go to an appeal court when Lancashire was disallowed from doing so.

The Lancashire case has reached the end of the line?

[luxCon]

Incidentally there is a thread asking for who best to turn to for advice. After 8 pages of "discussion" it can be summed up in this post.

The fact a new comer may not realise is that there is very little a Tax Adviser can do for any recent HMRC discoveries. In most cases, other than obvious technicalities its throwing good money after bad.

If you got caught up in any kind of Non-PAYE scheme in the recent years, the only sensible option is to settle and pay what would have been due. Paying a so-called advisor £2,000 will achieve the same result.

What we are discussing here is very different, its about fighting a real fight on a case that only a judge on a the highest courts can decide on. Losing that chance for the sake of egos is the real madness

[Saleos]

That wasn't any comment on the case - it's my take on the attitude of the new and recently returned "posters" trying to get people to fund the action.

And I've not seen any evidence why the Hoey case will be allowed to go to an appeal court when Lancashire was disallowed from doing so.

Eek. What evidence do you have that Lancashire applied for but was not given permission to appeal?

It is very odd indeed that you repeatedly question a case that has made it through the FTT to the UT but are happy to support one that has made it to neither and when you very evidently don't understand the issues.

As to your other comments about not offering up alternatives I messaged you on Monday with the promised note on what new HMRC targets and those of unscrupulous umbrellas should look for and do and that included recommendation on how EVERYONE could seek INDEPENDENT advice. And it doesn't mention me. Saleos has ceased to trade. I am not looking for new clients. You can do with that article/advice as you see fit.

I am assisting Mr Hoey for free. And yet my motives are questioned whilst others get a pass.

This forum does not welcome critical thinking or facts. God forbid someone asks for both.

I don't agree with WebberG on much but on leaving this place alone he is on to something.

Au Revoir.

[dammit chloe]

Eek. What evidence do you have that Lancashire applied for but was not given permission to appeal?

It is very odd indeed that you repeatedly question a case that has made it through the FTT to the UT but are happy to support one that has made it to neither and when you very evidently don't understand the issues.

As to your other comments about not offering up alternatives I messaged you on Monday with the promised note on what new HMRC targets and those of unscrupulous umbrellas should look for and do and that included recommendation on how EVERYONE could seek INDEPENDENT advice. And it doesn't mention me. Saleos has ceased to trade. I am not looking for new clients. You can do with that article/advice as you see fit.

I am assisting Mr Hoey for free. And yet my motives are questioned whilst others get a pass.

This forum does not welcome critical thinking or facts. God forbid someone asks for both.

I don't agree with WebberG on much but on leaving this place alone he is on to something.

Au Revoir.

I agree with pretty much all of this. Seems to be all about the messenger not the message.

OTOH, please don't boast about doing stuff for free. The last tax person to flaunt that fact was Phil Manley. Have you heard from him lately? What an utterly tragic lowlife he turned into. I have no idea if he always was.

[huntingground]

There seems to be a common theme in what I am seeing over the past few months.

Armadillo Support hounded LCAG on Twitter.

Saleos hounded BG on CUK.

The common denominator in this is Matt Hall and he seems to love to create division and strife within the LC community. Why?

[TheDogsNads]

That's a pretty poor take on the matter and ignores the importance of the case. Given how detailed Saleos's answers were even more so. I'm not sure why the case that has made it to UTT after 5 years of effort is being discredited while other resolutions over that same period haven't fired a shot and can't even bring themselves to set out the points they have already shared with HMRC anyway.

I certainly don't think there has been much to complain about here from a CUK perspective either. From the odd foray into some other subsections, it seem relatively polite and good natured in this one. People are just looking for some clarity over opaqueness.

I could say more but that would probably not be welcomed, so I shall head back into hibernation.

In all of this 'we've disclosed our strategy but, blah, blah, blah hasnt disclosed their's in 5 years of inaction' misses a very salient point. Saleos has only disclosed his 'strategy' after the Hoey case had been heard at the UTT. In other words, discussing what has been done isnt news to assist HMRC, they already know.

As far as Im aware, Saleos or whoever was representing Mr Hoey at the time, did not disclose their strategy pre FTT hearing (and possibly pre UTT hearing but by then, it wouldnt matter so much as the main thrust was revealled at the FTT) and especially didnt do so on an open forum HMRC is known to monitor.

To do so would be suicidal in any case against HMRC. It would be like handing HMRC an open goal. I keep seeing Saleos being praised for being open regarding the arguments used in Hoey. Well, yes, they are now a matter of public record, recorded by the FTT and now the UTT. The facts are now well known to HMRC. There is no need for 'secrecy.'

Id be majory surprised if Saleos had spilled his guts on his strategy to all and sundry pre FTT and to a lesser extent, pre UTT hearing yet, here he is, together with his acolytes, demanding one other representative does so with theirs. It beggars belief.

Saleos' supporters are running around these HMRC Scheme Enquiry threads opening new ones to attack the same person \ group representatives as the Mods close off others. They seem to want to play a game of whack a mole.

I find that very sad. HMRC must be pissing themselves reading these threads. They have no need to divide and conquer. It seems some within us are quite happy to do this for them.

Be careful what you wish for.

Once again, I have no connection with BG or WTT. If people want to think I have, then that is simply yet another fact they have got wrong.

[DealorNoDeal]

Yes but...

WTT say they have already applied to the FTT, so HMRC will be fully aware of the arguments through their skeleton. In fact, webberg said HMRC tried to have their case stayed behind Hoey because it was very similar.

OK, WTT may be keeping some powder dry but it's my understanding that you can't introduce new legal angles further down the line.

-------

Having said all that, if WTT don't want to share their technical arguments with Hoey, Higgs and Lancashire's legal teams that's their prerogative.

[TheDogsNads]

Yes but...

WTT say they have already applied to the FTT, so HMRC will be fully aware of the arguments through their skeleton. In fact, webberg said HMRC tried to have their case stayed behind Hoey because it was very similar.

OK, WTT may be keeping some powder dry but it's my understanding that you can't introduce new legal angles further down the line.

-------

Having said all that, if WTT don't want to share their technical arguments with Hoey, Higgs and Lancashire's legal teams that's their prerogative.

You're wrong. He said in his farewell post HMRC had attempted to stay one of their cases, not all.

New legal argument can be introduced with the agreement of the Tribunal. And a skeleton is what it says, it is the pure 'bones' of a case and not the finer detail. But hey, let's tip off HMRC in advance shall we?

[DealorNoDeal]

And a skeleton is what it says, it is the pure 'bones' of a case and not the finer detail.

It doesn't sound like they're even willing to share that with other legal teams.

But, as I said, that's their prerogative.

The strength, or otherwise, of their case(s) will become apparent at some point.