Reply to: NTRT give HMRC a bloody nose

[Calmbeforethestorm]

One way to avoid this whole thing is to persuade enough mps to ask for a reconsideration of the matter and that to conclude that the LC legislation needs amending or scrapping altogether.

The other being a successful challenge or challenges in the TT's and/or Courts on whether or not the legislation is legal , constitutional or applicable to a given set of circumstances...perhaps even the settlement contract and process itself could be challenged as unfair contract terms or too coercive in a modern democracy . Arguing the toss on finer points of what is binding on who between ourselves is rather pointless IMHO.

I'll concede that a "resolution" such as sought by BIG Group could be possible but seems limited to Contractors only who are not the only ones potentially caught . There may be many schemes which are not caught by this batch of legislation, but that wont stop HMRC seeking fresh retrospective law when they start to find out that people have slipped the net.BIG Group have stated above that litigation is a possibility....presumably if reasoned argument fails.

[Iliketax]

This is a bit like "The answer is 42. What is the question?"

Good. So you've got your answer.

[GammaMadrid]

No to both.

A decision of the UTT is binding on the FTT (whether or not an appeal has been made). It is obviously not binding on the CoA, CoS or the SC.

Is it binding on another UTT? Probably, unless there is a compelling reason not to (see Chapter 85 of The Upper Tribunals Handbook). There is a case (not to do with tax) which suggests something slightly different - a single judge must follow a three judge panel’s decision. A three judge panel should follow a single judge’s decision unless there are compelling reasons not to. The same goes for a single judge following another single judge’s decision. I've no reason to doubt that this would not apply to tax too.

This is a bit like "The answer is 42. What is the question?".

I made the original statement about it being binding. Nowhere did I say what on.

So if George wins at UTTT, does that mean LCAG will definetly win at FTTT? And if HMRC win at UTTT, does that mean they will lose ever other IR35 case at FTTT? To be fair, they lose most IR35 cases anyway.

[Iliketax]

Its WUC who is talking rubbish. Trust me.

No to both.

A decision of the UTT is binding on the FTT (whether or not an appeal has been made). It is obviously not binding on the CoA, CoS or the SC.

Is it binding on another UTT? Probably, unless there is a compelling reason not to (see Chapter 85 of The Upper Tribunals Handbook). There is a case (not to do with tax) which suggests something slightly different - a single judge must follow a three judge panel’s decision. A three judge panel should follow a single judge’s decision unless there are compelling reasons not to. The same goes for a single judge following another single judge’s decision. I've no reason to doubt that this would not apply to tax too.

[GammaMadrid]

I did. He's talking rubbish. Trust me.

Why should we trust you? What qualifications do you have?

Its WUC who is talking rubbish. Trust me.

[washed up contractor]

Perhaps one of the resident experts could clarify?

I did. He's talking rubbish. Trust me.

[washed up contractor]

So until we know if an appeal will be made, the decision is not binding.

If there is no appeal, then I agree it sets precedent.

If there is an appeal, it does not and is essentially "trumped" by the Court of Appeal.

Sorry Graham but you're clearly out of your depth and talking garbage as your comment "So until we know if an appeal will be made, the decision is not binding.

Wrong! A UTTT decision sets a precedent as soon as the judge hands it down. That means it is binding as soon as it is given.

As a UTTT decision can only be 'appealled' on a point of law, Leave to appeal first must be obtained. This is either given by the UTT or more usually the CoA.

Only if the CoA is satisfied that Leave should be granted, it either upholds the original decision in full or in part or, it sets it aside.

The UTTT's decision does not become invalid or less binding simply because Leave to appeal is made. Leave might not be granted or may be granted and like Gittins, the appellant simply fails to follow the appeal through in time.

As I said, people who are using your services should be a bit worried by now with such lack of basic knowledge you have displayed.

[GammaMadrid]

Perhaps one of the resident experts could clarify?

There are very few experts round here. Luckily Graham and Phil are around to provide some sanity. And mods will delete anything that is obviously and totally wrong.

[webberg]

Sorry, but once again you show your lack of knowledge (which should be a concern to anyone using your scheme to fight HMRC).

UTTT decisions are binding as they set a precedent unlike FTTTs that do not. The decision of a UTTT is appeallable only on a point of law. And, if that is shown to be sustained then the decision is set aside.

So until we know if an appeal will be made, the decision is not binding.

If there is no appeal, then I agree it sets precedent.

If there is an appeal, it does not and is essentially "trumped" by the Court of Appeal.

[Calmbeforethestorm]

Webberg was quite correct to correct me. And I stand by my earlier post.

I did type out a reply to you. But have deleted it. If you have a point to make - make it. If you want to hurl personal insults, or insults of any type, head over to the bear pit(aka general) and join the rest of the, well I won't say what they are as I don't want to be dragged down to your level.

Perhaps one of the resident experts could clarify?

[GammaMadrid]

Sorry, but once again you show your lack of knowledge (which should be a concern to anyone using your scheme to fight HMRC).

UTTT decisions are binding as they set a precedent unlike FTTTs that do not. The decision of a UTTT is appeallable only on a point of law. And, if that is shown to be sustained then the decision is set aside.

You're talking rubbish. The NTRT FTT (and UTT if it gets that far) has no impact on the Loan Charge. Neither is it about IR35 which is another misunderstanding on your part. Even if the group win even at UTT it will not weaken HMRC's IR35 strategy because the case does not attack IR35 principles.

Webberg was quite correct to correct me. And I stand by my earlier post.

I did type out a reply to you. But have deleted it. If you have a point to make - make it. If you want to hurl personal insults, or insults of any type, head over to the bear pit(aka general) and join the rest of the, well I won't say what they are as I don't want to be dragged down to your level.

[GammaMadrid]

Have I understood this correctly? TAA (the contractors) are claiming they were disguised employees and IR35 should apply, rather than the retrospective tax on their scheme, which I assume is heavy. HMRC are claiming IR35 should not apply in an attempt to get the big retrospective tax. Why would a TAA win mean LC lost, I don't follow this, in what sense lost?

A TAA win would help the LC. It means the employers are liable. Like the Rangers case.

Also why would an HMRC win stop IR35 (I guess because people could then use HMRCs own arguments from this case that IR35 doesn't apply as reasons for why it doesn't apply to them going forward? Interesting...).

You guess correctly.

[washed up contractor]

So who do we want to win?

TAA, which also means LC will be lost.

Or HMRC, which means the end of IR35.

Toughie.....

You're talking rubbish. The NTRT FTT (and UTT if it gets that far) has no impact on the Loan Charge. Neither is it about IR35 which is another misunderstanding on your part. Even if the group win even at UTT it will not weaken HMRC's IR35 strategy because the case does not attack IR35 principles.

[washed up contractor]

Being pedantic.

A UTTT decision is not necessarily binding.

My guess is that even if HMRC lose at UTT then they will appeal to CoA and the Supreme Court, precisely because they cannot afford to lose.

Sadly, even if they lose (and I think they will), and do not collect the money that they have promised spreadsheet Phil and also lose the loan charge to a JR, the architects of the plan in HMRC will brush off the millions in wasted money and damage to reputation and will still collect the nice pension and the gong in due course.

Sorry, but once again you show your lack of knowledge (which should be a concern to anyone using your scheme to fight HMRC).

UTTT decisions are binding as they set a precedent unlike FTTTs that do not. The decision of a UTTT is appeallable only on a point of law. And, if that is shown to be sustained then the decision is set aside.

[starstruck]

https://forums.contractoruk.com/acco...58-fa2008.html

This latest case(the JR) was not just semantic points of procedure - it blew apart HMRC FN/APN strategy. HMRC landed a couple of minor blows - but were knocked out and will never fight again.

You are right though, the main case goes on. HMRC continue to be dragged kicking and screaming towards FTTT trying everything they can not to get there. In settling with George, they conceded IR35 applies in very few cases. In effect, TAA are fighting for IR35 to be applied. HMRC are fighting against IR35!

Have I understood this correctly? TAA (the contractors) are claiming they were disguised employees and IR35 should apply, rather than the retrospective tax on their scheme, which I assume is heavy. HMRC are claiming IR35 should not apply in an attempt to get the big retrospective tax. Why would a TAA win mean LC lost, I don't follow this, in what sense lost? Also why would an HMRC win stop IR35 (I guess because people could then use HMRCs own arguments from this case that IR35 doesn't apply as reasons for why it doesn't apply to them going forward? Interesting...).