Some clients have begun questioning the approach taken by BG and what they have received for their fees. This led to a long farewell here: https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...-farewell.html.
Readers can make up their own minds as to whether it is sufficient to address concerns that clients do not understand the arguments being pursued, how they are affected by Hoey or when, or indeed if, a case will every be brought before the FTT.
The farewell statement contains a number of points that could be misleading and should therefore be corrected so that readers can understand the position fully.
I hope that these points will be allowed. It seems that open criticism (for example calling me a scammer) is fair game for some but criticism of others quickly sees threads shut. Even if not comments are allowed below this thread I would ask that the following points of reply be permitted.
1. "This time around, we contacted the law firm last Friday and as the main person there was busy in Court that day, suggested that he call us when free. We have had no call. We’re not sure what to read into that."
An email sent by WebberG at 17:53 on 26/11/20. He tried to recall that email but couldn't because it had already been opened by the recipient.
RPC, the solicitors to whom it was sent, replied at 21:15 that same evening having received instruction that they were authorised to discuss the case & funding requirements. I have seen both emails.
RPC tell me that they have called WebberG and are waiting for him to get back to them with a time/date for a call.
2. "Our clients remain fully briefed of our arguments through provision of several technical papers, countless webinars and ongoing updates. To suggest they don’t know what they’re paying for does them a disservice".
It is clients (see other threads) that have made that "suggestion".
3. "In seeking that resolution we have made repeated calls for those involved in the advisory side, to come together and combine forces. Every one of those calls has been unsuccessful. This is unfortunate as perhaps if we were aware of the arguments on Hoey – before appearing in Tribunal – and had had an opportunity to have some input, we may have a better idea now of whether that case deserves support".
Last summer all three Counsel involved in the three cases that have since been decided in FTT exchanged skeleton arguments. Hoey, Higgs & Lancashire shared their respective arguments so as to give all parties the best possible "ammunition".
Only one party did not take part in that show & tell.
4. Confidentiality has repeatedly been cited as the reason for arguments not being shared (if not publicly or with clients then with instructed solicitors or Counsel). Some have said here and elsewhere that it is to keep those arguments from HMRC. But WebberG states that they have already had to reveal those arguments to persuade the FTT not to automatically stay their case behind Hoey.
That statement also shows that HMRC argue strongly that Hoey WILL bind BG/WTT.
5. "Tax “experts” in this space have been proven wrong before and may well be again. If you choose to believe one view over another, then do so with knowledge, research and some due diligence".
On this we are in absolute agreement. Indeed that is all that those now questioning BG call for. The information necessary to properly evaluate the views upon which so many have staked ££££.
For my part I am more than happy to discuss, publicly, the technical issues; to exchanges views and accept that there may be differences of opinion. It is hard "to believe one view over another" if only one side sets out the details upon which theirs are based.
It shouldn't be too much to ask of everyone so that readers here can make properly informed decisions based on a cross-section of views/opinion.
Readers can make up their own minds as to whether it is sufficient to address concerns that clients do not understand the arguments being pursued, how they are affected by Hoey or when, or indeed if, a case will every be brought before the FTT.
The farewell statement contains a number of points that could be misleading and should therefore be corrected so that readers can understand the position fully.
I hope that these points will be allowed. It seems that open criticism (for example calling me a scammer) is fair game for some but criticism of others quickly sees threads shut. Even if not comments are allowed below this thread I would ask that the following points of reply be permitted.
1. "This time around, we contacted the law firm last Friday and as the main person there was busy in Court that day, suggested that he call us when free. We have had no call. We’re not sure what to read into that."
An email sent by WebberG at 17:53 on 26/11/20. He tried to recall that email but couldn't because it had already been opened by the recipient.
RPC, the solicitors to whom it was sent, replied at 21:15 that same evening having received instruction that they were authorised to discuss the case & funding requirements. I have seen both emails.
RPC tell me that they have called WebberG and are waiting for him to get back to them with a time/date for a call.
2. "Our clients remain fully briefed of our arguments through provision of several technical papers, countless webinars and ongoing updates. To suggest they don’t know what they’re paying for does them a disservice".
It is clients (see other threads) that have made that "suggestion".
3. "In seeking that resolution we have made repeated calls for those involved in the advisory side, to come together and combine forces. Every one of those calls has been unsuccessful. This is unfortunate as perhaps if we were aware of the arguments on Hoey – before appearing in Tribunal – and had had an opportunity to have some input, we may have a better idea now of whether that case deserves support".
Last summer all three Counsel involved in the three cases that have since been decided in FTT exchanged skeleton arguments. Hoey, Higgs & Lancashire shared their respective arguments so as to give all parties the best possible "ammunition".
Only one party did not take part in that show & tell.
4. Confidentiality has repeatedly been cited as the reason for arguments not being shared (if not publicly or with clients then with instructed solicitors or Counsel). Some have said here and elsewhere that it is to keep those arguments from HMRC. But WebberG states that they have already had to reveal those arguments to persuade the FTT not to automatically stay their case behind Hoey.
That statement also shows that HMRC argue strongly that Hoey WILL bind BG/WTT.
5. "Tax “experts” in this space have been proven wrong before and may well be again. If you choose to believe one view over another, then do so with knowledge, research and some due diligence".
On this we are in absolute agreement. Indeed that is all that those now questioning BG call for. The information necessary to properly evaluate the views upon which so many have staked ££££.
For my part I am more than happy to discuss, publicly, the technical issues; to exchanges views and accept that there may be differences of opinion. It is hard "to believe one view over another" if only one side sets out the details upon which theirs are based.
It shouldn't be too much to ask of everyone so that readers here can make properly informed decisions based on a cross-section of views/opinion.
Comment