BG - WebberG farewell. Right to reply.

[GhostofTarbera]

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?

Matt is working for free, free, free, free he likes to remind

Like telling people you worked for free picking up 1000 tins in the supermarket that were on the floor

But not telling them you knocked the 1000 tins over on purpose

I’m sure Matt will be along to confirm which loan scheme he worked for in the past (if any)


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[ns1]

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?

The fewer people who know the detail the better. Less chance of it falling into HMRC's hands.

Case in point, something occurred yesterday that's already leaked out.

[Darkpaw]

Saleos has only disclosed his 'strategy' after the Hoey case had been heard at the UTT.

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)...

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...

As someone directly affected by the Hoey case, the skeleton arguments were provided to us before the FTT hearing, but, possibly, after having been given to HMRC - which is required when you're going to Tribunal. Both teams exchange their skeleton arguments before the hearing.

You can't add points into the hearing that weren't provided in the skeleton arguments. Indeed, HMRC attempted to do this in the latest UTT hearing, which annoyed the judge.

I've contributed about £350 since 2013/14 and we've gone to the FTT and the UTT, and are awaiting a result. As members of the litigation association(s )tied to this case, we have been asked to give a new minimum contribution of £300 to be used for our appeal, if necessary. If we don't need to appeal the money is returned to us.

Mr Hoey is fundraising externally, on GoFundMe I think, for those who wish to help. Again, if the appeal is not necessary or he doesn't reach the amount needed, those monies are returned. (That's from what I read the other week.)

Yes, Matt Hall has done this for free for the last year or two. Yes, he worked at a company that sold schemes, but since then he has defended us for very little money that has provided very big results.

You can snipe at him all you like, just as he can snipe at WebberG all he likes. Only one of them has produced results.

[eek]

As someone directly affected by the Hoey case, the skeleton arguments were provided to us before the FTT hearing, but, possibly, after having been given to HMRC - which is required when you're going to Tribunal. Both teams exchange their skeleton arguments before the hearing.

You can't add points into the hearing that weren't provided in the skeleton arguments. Indeed, HMRC attempted to do this in the latest UTT hearing, which annoyed the judge.

I've contributed about £350 since 2013/14 and we've gone to the FTT and the UTT, and are awaiting a result. As members of the litigation association(s )tied to this case, we have been asked to give a new minimum contribution of £300 to be used for our appeal, if necessary. If we don't need to appeal the money is returned to us.

Mr Hoey is fundraising externally, on GoFundMe I think, for those who wish to help. Again, if the appeal is not necessary or he doesn't reach the amount needed, those monies are returned. (That's from what I read the other week.)

Yes, Matt Hall has done this for free for the last year or two. Yes, he worked at a company that sold schemes, but since then he has defended us for very little money that has provided very big results.

You can snipe at him all you like, just as he can snipe at WebberG all he likes. Only one of them has produced results.

That is not how gofundme works - it does not have a triggering target - whoever is behind the campaign can access any funds donated at any time.

And thanks for confirming there is a chance that Hoey may not be allowed a subsequent appeal - I've asked that question before and never got a definitive answer. But between the possibility of no further appeal and the approach the gofundme campaign is using all my doubts about the current fund raising campaign are confirmed.

BTW I would have had zero objections to asking people to prepare to give money when an appeal was granted but asking for money via a non-refundable campaign when there is a possibility of no subsequent appeal is a step too far. Especially when those facts haven't been made 100% clear.

[dammit chloe]

That is not how gofundme works - it does not have a triggering target - whoever is behind the campaign can access any funds donated at any time.

And thanks for confirming there is a chance that Hoey may not be allowed a subsequent appeal - I've asked that question before and never got a definitive answer. But between the possibility of no further appeal and the approach the gofundme campaign is using all my doubts about the current fund raising campaign are confirmed.

BTW I would have had zero objections to asking people to prepare to give money when an appeal was granted but asking for money via a non-refundable campaign when there is a possibility of no subsequent appeal is a step too far. Especially when those facts haven't been made 100% clear.

Where does it say 'allowed"? Another possibility is that there may not be an appeal if whoever loses decides not to. I suspect there is always the possibility that an appeal may not be allowed.

The reason this had to happen now was due to time constraints. There is a very small window between UTT decision and the closing date for the potential appeal. If there are insufficient funds within the timeframe then game over.

I have no idea how gofundme works but I think, given the state of every other litigating case and aspiring litigating cases it is no big deal. Still, you only question the one side that has actually done stuff. Oh well.

It is worth noting that Big Group has had a dedicated sticky post on this forum for years. Hmmm.

[eek]

Where does it say 'allowed"? Another possibility is that there may not be an appeal if whoever loses decides not to. I suspect there is always the possibility that an appeal may not be allowed.

The reason this had to happen now was due to time constraints. There is a very small window between UTT decision and the closing date for the potential appeal. If there are insufficient funds within the timeframe then game over.

I have no idea how gofundme works but I think, given the state of every other litigating case and aspiring litigating cases it is no big deal. Still, you only question the one side that has actually done stuff. Oh well.

It is worth noting that Big Group has had a dedicated sticky post on this forum for years. Hmmm.

Big Group didn't ask for money without providing an outline of what they would do with the money.

Hoey is asking for money while failing to mention the fact that a subsequent appeal may not be allowed and nor has anyone else on here actually highlighted that slight flaw in their requests for money. Meanwhile the same people have attacked BG to the extent that the one of the very few people actually answering questions on this site left it.

I really do hope that when Cojak sees this in the morning she gets her ban hammer out.

[AtW]

The fewer people who know the detail the better. Less chance of it falling into HMRC's hands

Pretty solid sign that the defence is weak - one would have thought people who paid for it would be interested in any and all scrutiny ASAP because if it falls apart early then the only losers are WG as they would not get continued recurring payments - and that money could have went towards defences that are not relying on being secret.

On the other hand paying 15 quid a month to maintain delusion of having a chance of win isn’t a very high price to pay.

[Darkpaw]

That is not how gofundme works - it does not have a triggering target - whoever is behind the campaign can access any funds donated at any time.

Sorry, I did mis-read it. If the GoFundMe appeal doesn't hit the target, Mr Hoey will have to close it and the funds will be donated to the MIND charity as it isn't possible to return the funds to those who donated them.

And thanks for confirming there is a chance that Hoey may not be allowed a subsequent appeal

I never said an appeal wouldn't be allowed. I said if it is not necessary to appeal, i.e. HMRC don't appeal the result. That's twisting what I said, and doesn't help anyone.

There are four possible outcomes:
1. Hoey wins and HMRC appeals: Hoey needs to raise enough funds to cover the costs of the appeal, and this is done via the litigation association(s) and GoFundMe.
2. Hoey wins and HMRC doesn't appeal: Funds contributed via GoFundMe cannot be returned so are donated to the MIND charity; and, contributions to the litigation association(s) are returned to those who donated.
3. Hoey loses: Mr Hoey has said he intends to appeal, so they need to raise the funds (as outcome 1).

But between the possibility of no further appeal and the approach the gofundme campaign is using all my doubts about the current fund raising campaign are confirmed.

Nothing I said should've given you any doubts. The GoFundMe campaign is there for people who are not members of the litigation association(s) but would like to contribute because the result might help them. None of this is secret or dodgy; it is a campaign to raise funds for an appeal that may happen. (See next point.)

BTW I would have had zero objections to asking people to prepare to give money when an appeal was granted

It would be too late to raise the funds then. You only have 28 days after the result to confirm you can afford the appeal.

but asking for money via a non-refundable campaign

Worked for that shyster Manley, but in our case this is actually happening.

[dammit chloe]

Big Group didn't ask for money without providing an outline of what they would do with the money.

Hoey is asking for money while failing to mention the fact that a subsequent appeal may not be allowed and nor has anyone else on here actually highlighted that slight flaw in their requests for money. Meanwhile the same people have attacked BG to the extent that the one of the very few people actually answering questions on this site left it.

I really do hope that when Cojak sees this in the morning she gets her ban hammer out.

I don't care about bans. I care about the silly, nit-picky and pedantic opining of the leading case while sidestepping any critical analysis of what has BG been doing all these years since that post was pinned.

I spoke to 2 out of the main three at WTT 2 years ago and they provided no outline whatsoever of what there plans were, so that's a crock. In fact they contradicted each other. IMO they were making it up as they go along. It was pay to play and you were playing on blind faith. This was the defining reason why I chose not to join.

3 years they spent cosy chats with HMRC. Hoey spent that time dragging HMRC to court.

And once again, you question and misdirect on any uncomfortable facts or questions. No questioning of why there has been no action for years, or dedicated stickies here etc etc. And somehow all the aforementioned posts were charitable work despite every other one ending with a nudge to scare people into their arms. All your criticism reserved for those who have actually led the charge. Very odd.

Are you even aware of Rebus?

[dammit chloe]

Pretty solid sign that the defence is weak - one would have thought people who paid for it would be interested in any and all scrutiny ASAP because if it falls apart early then the only losers are WG as they would not get continued recurring payments - and that money could have went towards defences that are not relying on being secret.

On the other hand paying 15 quid a month to maintain delusion of having a chance of win isn’t a very high price to pay.

Exactly. We all know now that tax judges take a purposive approach now rather than the letter of the law approach they used to. So anything that is attempting to hide behind a nuance of wording or tiny, tiny loophole is unlikely to pass any muster with a judge.

To have a strong argument it needs to be a robust and on a clear point of law. I suspect those are all pretty well known by all parties now.