Reply to: Tribunal and beyond

[lowpaidworker]

I share those concerns, however it is about the legality of the Loan Charge not the fairness or unfairness of what it contains. The MPs are mainly concerned about the latter. Still, no doubt some may use it as an excuse to drift off.

End of the day, there are lots of critics here and out there about what LCAG is or isn't doing. Far more than are actually volunteering or helping where the core group is relatively small.

I totally get that. I've seen what appears to be a few people supposedly on the side of those facing the loan charge take glee it what might be a fall at the first hurdle. I said a while back this is whole mess is a harder read that Smileys People in that there seems to be no lines in the sand as the battle commences.

Its pretty worrying some so called anti LC egos are getting in the way of what should be a consolidated battle

[dammit chloe]

Wow big gamble then

I share those concerns, however it is about the legality of the Loan Charge not the fairness or unfairness of what it contains. The MPs are mainly concerned about the latter. Still, no doubt some may use it as an excuse to drift off.

End of the day, there are lots of critics here and out there about what LCAG is or isn't doing. Far more than are actually volunteering or helping where the core group is relatively small.

[lowpaidworker]

One other thing to be aware of (which happened in the Montpelier case)...

If you lose a JR, especially if the decision is unequivocal, it may have wider negative ramifications.

Firstly, you may get slated by the press (labelled tax dodgers etc). Any sympathy there might have been, may quickly disappear.

Secondly, the Government may use the decision to justify that no further action/concessions are required. You may also lose the backing of some previously supportive MPs.

Wow big gamble then

[DealorNoDeal]

Sorry to be a downer

One other thing to be aware of (which happened in the Montpelier case)...

If you lose a JR, especially if the decision is unequivocal, it may have wider negative ramifications.

Firstly, you may get slated by the press (labelled tax dodgers etc). Any sympathy there might have been, may quickly disappear.

Secondly, the Government may use the decision to justify that no further action/concessions are required. You may also lose the backing of some previously supportive MPs.

[wilks]

Published next week. Quite quick so I don't see it being favourable. It will be appealed no doubt. Be interesting if there are any morsels to feed off.

I supported the JR but have always seen it as a long shot and a way to apply pressure/buy time rather than anything else.

____________________

Unfortunately Tax JRs on human rights are pointless and never work - there are several precedents. Seems RV took those who contributed for another ride. No JR on the LC will be successful.

[BrilloPad]

FWIW, the decision in the Montpelier JR (against retro BN66) was published within a week or so, and that was an emphatic defeat. The Judge didn't even throw Montpelier a morsel.

This is very true. The decision was basically "Parliament can make any law it wants.".

My favourite bit was Judge Parker saying that Montpelier had not done enough to force HMRC to close the scheme!

[DealorNoDeal]

Published next week. Quite quick so I don't see it being favourable. It will be appealed no doubt. Be interesting if there are any morsels to feed off.

I supported the JR but have always seen it as a long shot and a way to apply pressure/buy time rather than anything else.

FWIW, the decision in the Montpelier JR (against retro BN66) was published within a week or so, and that was an emphatic defeat. The Judge didn't even throw Montpelier a morsel.

[dammit chloe]

Anyone know what the Judges decision was for the LCAG JR. Or has it not been published yet ?

Published next week. Quite quick so I don't see it being favourable. It will be appealed no doubt. Be interesting if there are any morsels to feed off.

I supported the JR but have always seen it as a long shot and a way to apply pressure/buy time rather than anything else.

[lowpaidworker]

Anyone know what the Judges decision was for the LCAG JR. Or has it not been published yet ?

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

dont tell em your name Pike

[BrilloPad]

really would urge people not to discuss this on an open forum as its just unhelpful

closed forums are available with BG and others for those parties interested in the case.

I would urge people not to bump the thread. I would never do anything like that.

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

why are we discussing this on an open forum ?

really would urge people not to discuss this on an open forum as its just unhelpful

closed forums are available with BG and others for those parties interested in the case.

[BolshieBastard]

To clarify.

The Montpelier DTA case that went to FTT and is not the Huitson case, was at Tribunal in May 2019 and as mentionad, a decision is awaited. WTT/Big Group had nothing to do with that action in terms of organising or supporting it.

(As it happens we are now involved in it and think it quite outrageous that a decision has not been reached. We are told it may yet be more months before it appears).

The cases we are involved in taking to the FTT are a mix of those where HMRC is making the running and those where we are.

Very much though dealing with the FTT.

OK I think I need correct some stuff here because there's a bit of disinformation going on. There isnt a 'Montpelier DTA' May 2019 case at an FTT to my knowledge but if people want to call it that for convenience, so be it.

Just to clarify this comment here, webberg's group are NOT involved with the May 2019 (Montpelier DTA) FTT at all. The statement 'as it happens, we are now involved in it,' is just downright misleading.

A number of people have sought to combat HMRC's APN regime. However, by luck or design, HMRC has managed to get a couple of other cases heard and decided before the 'Montpelier DTA' action. This means at least one case is progressing to appeal via the UTT and it needs to be remembered that UTT decisions set precedence while FTTs do not.

The organisers of the 'Montpelier DTA' decided it was prudent to reach out to these other groups to not only share some relevant info but to also determine these other groups timetable and strategies.

But it is incorrect to say that any other group is now 'involved' in any way with another group's action. No other group drives the others actions and no other group speaks for members of another group.

Please remember this when you read comments in these threads.

[More Lamb]

(As it happens we are now involved in it and think it quite outrageous that a decision has not been reached. We are told it may yet be more months before it appears).

You think 8 months is outrageous?

Try 4 years for size. (46 months to be precise)

That's the length of time it took, from applying to the FTT in July 2015, for the case to actually come to tribunal. Now that's proper outrageous!

Can anyone guess why it took this long? <mod snip>

[webberg]

Big Group have absolutely nothing to do with the Montpelier DTA nor the FTT.

Neither is there any indication when the judgement will be delivered so please do not listen to uninformed posters such as More Lamb.

To clarify.

The Montpelier DTA case that went to FTT and is not the Huitson case, was at Tribunal in May 2019 and as mentionad, a decision is awaited. WTT/Big Group had nothing to do with that action in terms of organising or supporting it.

(As it happens we are now involved in it and think it quite outrageous that a decision has not been reached. We are told it may yet be more months before it appears).

The cases we are involved in taking to the FTT are a mix of those where HMRC is making the running and those where we are.

Very much though dealing with the FTT.