Hoey - Court of Appeal legal fees GoFundMe contributions have now been refunded

[GoneSurfing]

Which part of "End up in the court of appeal" starts with you going straight there

Perhaps the part where you suggested that "the best plan would be to go directly there now"?

- the options are:-

1) Take the Hoey case to the Court of Appeal. As that is the next stage for the Hoey case given that this decision is from the Upper Tax Tribunal)
2) Wait HMRC to take a case to the County Court appeal the result to the High Court and watch that case go to the Court of Appeal.

Now were anyone in this case sane you would hope people would write everything off as a no win score draw but it's clear people don't think that HMRC will stop here so I can see why option 1 is the favourite.

1 is only possible *if* there are grounds for appeal of the UTT decision and for that it needs to be

• Wrong (in that it erred in law or in fact or in the exercise of its discretion).
• Unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court.

Hoey can't force a CoA hearing just to get a binding decision and HMRC can't appeal simply because they don't like the judgement.

As I've said previously, HMRC will attempt to collect as not doing so would be an admission that they got it wrong for well over a decade (despite their claims that 'the law as always clear') and even if there are grounds for an appeal they may even prefer the CC approach given that it's going to be more time consuming and costly for Hoey.

[eek]

Perhaps the part where you suggested that "the best plan would be to go directly there now"?



1 is only possible *if* there are grounds for appeal of the UTT decision and for that it needs to be

• Wrong (in that it erred in law or in fact or in the exercise of its discretion).
• Unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court.

Hoey can't force a CoA hearing just to get a binding decision and HMRC can't appeal simply because they don't like the judgement.

As I've said previously, HMRC will attempt to collect as not doing so would be an admission that they got it wrong for well over a decade (despite their claims that 'the law as always clear') and even if there are grounds for an appeal they may even prefer the CC approach given that it's going to be more time consuming and costly for Hoey.

You seem to miss what this thread is called - it’s title is Hoey court of Appeal Legal fees contributions.

and I know Saleos has covered all your other points previously as well

[TheDogsNads]

Which part of "End up in the court of appeal" starts with you going straight there - the options are:-

This part

So basically, at this point, if HMRC were to seek payment all routes end up in the court of appeal so the best plan would be to go directly there now.

You can thank me later for correcting your obvious mistakes not once, but twice.

[DealorNoDeal]

Have I got this right?

The FTT in Lancashire ruled that they did have jurisdiction to consider the PAYE question. But the UTT in Hoey ruled that they didn't?

I know the cases are different but, even so, that seems a bit bizarre.

And HMRC haven't appealed the jurisdiction ruling in Lancashire? Why wouldn't they do that? Surely, by not appealing, they are in effect accepting that the tribunal does have jurisdiction?

[eek]

This part

You can thank me later for correcting your obvious mistakes not once, but twice.

It’s not a mistake - at this moment the Hoey case’s next stage is the court of appeal.

so you have 2 options

take the Hoey case to the court of appeal now (directly)

or wait for HMRC to kick things off again where eventually it will end up at the court of appeal

[piebaps]

[QUOTE=Saleos;n4157687

Or should readers perhaps prefer the view of Rory Mullan QC who says "Bearing in mind HMRC’s approach I do not think it would be sensible to simply sit on the
decision as it is at present".[/QUOTE]

Purely from a cynical point of view, wasn't it a QC opinion which started the whole thing off in the first place?

I should add that no sleight is intended on Mr Mullan's expertise or pedigree both of which appear beyond reproach.

[TheDogsNads]

It’s not a mistake - at this moment the Hoey case’s next stage is the court of appeal.

so you have 2 options

take the Hoey case to the court of appeal now (directly)

or wait for HMRC to kick things off again where eventually it will end up at the court of appeal

When you're in a hole, as you clearly are, stop digging. You make yourself look an eejit.

[Saleos]

Have I got this right?

The FTT in Lancashire ruled that they did have jurisdiction to consider the PAYE question. But the UTT in Hoey ruled that they didn't?

I know the cases are different but, even so, that seems a bit bizarre.

And HMRC haven't appealed the jurisdiction ruling in Lancashire? Why wouldn't they do that? Surely, by not appealing, they are in effect accepting that the tribunal does have jurisdiction?

We can't know why HMRC didn't appeal the Lancashire PAYE issues. But 2 reasonably educated guesses. 1. The FTT isn't binding and so HMRC didn't want to risk a binding decision on the point. It is always easier to ask an UT Judge to agree with the lower court than to say they were wrong. 2. HMRC made much more ground on the ToAA legislation in Lancashire and so didn't need to push what has always seemed to me to be weak arguments on the PAYE. I remain unconvinced that HMRC are even convinced by them though we of course await their reaction to Hoey UT decision. HMRC can tax the individuals involved in the scheme that was heard in Lancashire under the ToAA legislation (subject to appeal). They don't have that option in Hoey.

[DealorNoDeal]

We can't know why HMRC didn't appeal the Lancashire PAYE issues. But 2 reasonably educated guesses. 1. The FTT isn't binding and so HMRC didn't want to risk a binding decision on the point. It is always easier to ask an UT Judge to agree with the lower court than to say they were wrong. 2. HMRC made much more ground on the ToAA legislation in Lancashire and so didn't need to push what has always seemed to me to be weak arguments on the PAYE. I remain unconvinced that HMRC are even convinced by them though we of course await their reaction to Hoey UT decision. HMRC can tax the individuals involved in the scheme that was heard in Lancashire under the ToAA legislation (subject to appeal). They don't have that option in Hoey.

Thanks.

I suppose, at least with Lancashire, there is now only one path forward - appeal ToAA to the UT.

With Hoey, it sounds like it could go a number of ways.

1) HMRC appeals ToAA to the CofA
2) Hoey appeals the UT's jurisdiction ruling to the CofA (can he even do that, or is 3 the only option?)
3) Hoey JR's HMRC's decision to disapply the PAYE regs and deny a tax credit
4) HMRC takes Hoey to the County Court

I guess there are some difficult strategic choices to make. Both for Hoey and HMRC.

[DealorNoDeal]

2) Hoey appeals the UT's jurisdiction ruling to the CofA (can he even do that, or is 3 the only option?)

Thinking about this a bit more. Maybe this explains why HMRC didn't appeal the jurisdiction point in Lancashire ie. they couldn't. Perhaps this is something which isn't appealable?

It still really puzzles me that the tribunals came to totally opposite views on the question of jurisdiction.