Reply to: Hoey - Court of Appeal legal fees

[I am tired TIRED]

Went through this whole thread beginning to end and now I have a big headache!! Lesson learnt

[luxCon]

Quick question on the Hoey case... (for anyone who may know).

Would a win for this case only be beneficial to users who had disclosed their loans using a DOTAS reference number, or would it be beneficial for ALL pre 2010 schemes (my payroll scheme did not have a DOTAS reference and when I questioned why not with the promoter, I was told one wasn’t needed).

If you're on Twitter, tweet Armadillo - Tax Support @ArmadilloSupprt and he will give you a reply. He is the tax adviser on the case

[Sky Rocket]

Clarity re Hoey appeal fund raiser & what it could mean for you

I understand there is uncertainty and scepticism about this, indeed me, so let me try, below, to be as clear and concise as possible about what "we" are looking to do and why. And most importantly why it could help many many more than just Mr Hoey.

Why is this important?


This litigation deals with PRE DR loans. Those received before 9 Dec 2010.

IF Mr Hoey wins HMRC would be unable to collect income tax from recipients of similar schemes (e.g. ASMG, ASIOM, Edge, GreebBay, AML (early years) Sanzar and so on - any employment based EBT loan scheme) using the PAYE code. HMRC can do so now only by exercising a claimed discretion under s684(7A) ITEPA 2003 (to remove a credit for the PAYE that ought to have been deducted by the employer/agency/end user (it matters not which)).

Further, the Transfer of Assets Abroad provisions (which would allow HMRC to collect tax directly from individuals without resorting to 'earnings' arguments) would not apply where the income of the person abroad is nil (as was held by the FTT in Hoey).

Hoey does [I]not [/I]cover any arguments re the possible application of Part 7A ITEPA 2003 (employment income through third parties) for POST DR years. The rules governing the transfer of liability for tax on earnings is very different under Part 7A. And of course the Loan Charge remains a huge barrier for those with Post DR loans. But nothing in Hoey prevents those arguments being run (by others).

However, IF Mr Hoey loses on the PAYE issues that WOULD scupper the proposed Big Group Strategy for post DR loans as arguments that the sums paid via these scheme were always 'general earnings' within s62 ITEPA 2003 would not assist. HMRC would simply be able to exercise its claimed discretion to remove any PAYE credit and to choose to collect that tax from the recipient (you) by dis-applying the PAYE regulations.


Legal Case so far

The first hearing was decided by the FTT in July 2019. The decision, facts, and arguments can be read here for those who wish to read the detail: Hoey v Revenue & Customs (PROCEDURE : INCOME TAX - IT contractor employed by offshore company) [2019] UKFTT 489 (TC) (29 July 2019)

Mr Hoey won on the ToAA point. HMRC on discovery & the PAYE issues (which the FTT largely decided it couldn't hear).

Both parties appealed.

The appeal was heard 22/23 & 26 October by the Upper Tribunal. Their decision is awaited. All costs for the FTT & UT (including provision for an adverse costs award) are covered.

Mr Hoey's legal team and I are cautiously optimistic of victory. But if we win HMRC are certain to appeal. And Mr Hoey wishes to appeal in the event that his appeal to the UT is unsuccessful.

The fund raising is solely to meet the legal costs of any onward appeal - initially to the Court of Appeal (and possibly the Supreme Court if necessary).

Any funds raised will be used only to pay Mr Hoey's legal team. I am assisting pro bono.

The current legal team is:

//www.rpc.co.uk/expertise/services/tax/

Rory Mullan | Specialist Tax Barrister | Tax Chambers

A full breakdown of the quote obtained for the anticipated appeal is accessible within the GoFundMe page here:

https://gf.me/u/y8isx5

The way in which GoFundMe is set up means that funds will be returned to contributors if no withdrawal is made by 16 March 2021. If we do not have sufficient funds to take an appeal, no withdrawal will be made and contributors will get their money back.

GoFundMe is NOT the main source of funding. Those who have funded Mr Hoey this far, via a formal Litigation Association (under which any remaining funds are returned to contributors pro rata) have been asked to contribute further.

But this is an opportunity for the thousands who have pre DR loans to help Mr Hoey and to help themselves.

What if Hoey wins?

IF Mr Hoey succeeds HMRC will not be able to use the PAYE system (or more accurately to disregard it) to collect tax from YOU. If, as was held by the FTT, the income of the person abroad is nil (because it was already income of Mr Hoey) then that is all you could be taxed on under the ToAA code - nil.

In those circumstances there would be no longer any 'disputed tax' and HMRC should refund sums paid against APNs.

What if Hoey fails?

HMRC will undoubtably use Hoey as a stick with which to force those with open Pre DR years to settle once and for all. Absent an appeal HMRC would have 12 months from the date of the final decision to issue Follower Notices which cannot be appealed and allow possible penalties of up to 50% of the disputed tax if they are ignored.

Moreover, for those who have pinned their hopes on the Big Group "resolution strategy" that strategy fails before it has started if HMRC is held to have their claimed discretion under s684(7A).

Why Hoey?

Hoey was not the first case to be heard by the FTT but it was the first to be decided. It is, because of the finding of fact re the income of the person abroad, in my view the BEST case. That finding sets it apart from Higgs & Lancashire (which both held that the ToAA provisions allowed HMRC to tax the individual directly).

Hoey is the only case to have reached the Upper Tribunal. Once that decision is released it will bind the FTT on points of law. That will tie the hands of those cases yet to start.

If Mr Hoey cannot afford legal representation (and he cannot without your help) HMRC would have an unopposed run at the Court of Appeal - only one side would be present to give their arguments - whichever side appeals.

Mr Hoey is not wealthy - he is a contractor like you, who will lose his home if he loses this case. He needs your help. If you have pre DR loans, you need your help! I am trying to help but need your support. Please share https://gf.me/u/y8isx5

Thank you for reading.

Quick question on the Hoey case... (for anyone who may know).

Would a win for this case only be beneficial to users who had disclosed their loans using a DOTAS reference number, or would it be beneficial for ALL pre 2010 schemes (my payroll scheme did not have a DOTAS reference and when I questioned why not with the promoter, I was told one wasn’t needed).

[TheDogsNads]

Actually, the real enemy are snake oil salesmen enticing people into schemes which either didn’t do what they were meant to or were merely traps to try to fleece those trusting later on.

In no way would I absolve those characters but once again, you utterly miss the obvious point on who the enemy is in this fight. Please wake up.

[Albert49]

Just cause it is subscription doesn't make it the same FFS. They are not a litigation, sorry resolution, group. I had no time for their tweeting nonsense as I was also doing a lot of work for LCAG at the time and it was very distracting. I have little time for tax advisors of any name but I believe MH/GB's take is probably more on the money than some want to believe.

So no, not nail on head. Far from it. Just more made up nonsense which seems to be this forum's main purpose.

If you did have time for Matt Hall and Gordon Berry's tweeting nonsense you would also have seen there attempts to derails Loan Charge APPG NC31 amendment, which is successful may have been the death of the Loan Charge, in favour of there own which stood virtually no chance of passing.

I find it hard to believe you were "doing a lot of work for LCAG at the time " if you would give these 2 the time of day.

[DealorNoDeal]

All I want is for people to see that Hoey is the only case that matters at the moment as it has actually seen the inside of a court room unlike some.

That requires people to open their eyes.

Like you, I have no skin in the game. I never used a loan scheme, and the scheme I did use I settled a few years ago.

[dammit chloe]

I think Albert49 has comprehensively destroyed your first point.

And the second point was based on this particular post - so I'm at a loss as to how you think I'm making things up



Which shows how much of a mess of your "friends" have made on what should be the easiest of tasks - keeping an email list and sending a single email to keep those who have previously paid money informed. I think that might have been rather useful when you wanted to identify people who may wish to contribute more money.

More nonsense with 'friends' eh. Can't help yourself. I have no skin in the game anymore. I have never met either and I gave GB lots of stick when I used to twitter.

The machinations of how people are informed is subject to lots of technical and legal reqts. You can't just spam people. I have no idea why things were changed or whether there were good reasons for the change. Neither do you, you just make up stories again and again.

Fine if you have facts but all you, and this forum in general, provide is a lasagne of opinion, hearsay and, in your case, uncritical shilling for Big Group.

All I want is for people to see that Hoey is the only case that matters at the moment as it has actually seen the inside of a court room unlike some.

[dammit chloe]

The first para completely made up? So you don't think that the the twitter posts earlier this year by Armadillo Tax Support, Saleos , Gordon Berry Wealth Agent and Phil Manley where they were attacking WTT's/Big Group approach (though usually carefully avoiding naming them), and retweeting each others posts, before setting up a similar business model themselves of monthly subscriptions was coincidence ?

Just cause it is subscription doesn't make it the same FFS. They are not a litigation, sorry resolution, group. I had no time for their tweeting nonsense as I was also doing a lot of work for LCAG at the time and it was very distracting. I have little time for tax advisors of any name but I believe MH/GB's take is probably more on the money than some want to believe.

So no, not nail on head. Far from it. Just more made up nonsense which seems to be this forum's main purpose.

[Invisiblehand]

You mean people like xxxx?

Or the people that say we’ll help you, just keep giving us your money...

[Fred Bloggs]

You mean people like xxx?

Better not to comment, just leave it open.

[huntingground]

Actually, the real enemy are snake oil salesmen enticing people into schemes which either didn’t do what they were meant to or were merely traps to try to fleece those trusting later on.

You mean people like xxxx?

[Fred Bloggs]

Actually, the real enemy are snake oil salesmen enticing people into schemes which either didn’t do what they were meant to or were merely traps to try to fleece those trusting later on.

Well said and I would encourage folks not to lose sight of that very fact.

[JusticeSeeker939]

When are you people going to stop bickering and fighting amongst yourselves and grasp the enemy here is HMRC, who are no doubt standing on the sidelines pissing themselves.

Actually, the real enemy are snake oil salesmen enticing people into schemes which either didn’t do what they were meant to or were merely traps to try to fleece those trusting later on.

[eek]

The first para is completely made up in his tin-foil coated head.

The second is a matter of who had signed up and who hadn't. I have no idea whether it is a screw up or simply a case of people wanting help but not wanting to pay. But Eek doesn't know for a fact either.

So no, not 100% correct because it is all conspiracy theory and fiction. Which explains his unwavering and unquestioning support of his favourite tax crushes.

I think Albert49 has comprehensively destroyed your first point.

And the second point was based on this particular post - so I'm at a loss as to how you think I'm making things up

For clarity I am both a Big Group member and a member of the Hoey Litigation Association.

I'm not going to get involved in the ongoing spat, I shall keep my views on that to myself however, on the funding request side of things, I don't think the Hoey reps have helped themselves.

As part of the Hoey LA I used to receive an email telling me of significant updates, and would login to the website which gave those updates. In January once the LC review had been published, I received an update to say the support was being ceased on said website and I would have to sign upto Armadillo to continue receiving updates, but the website would remain open until 31st December 2020 to access historic information.

I can only assume that those who didn't sign up (I didn't) had their email addresses removed/deleted from the new 'Armadillo' distribution list. Why do I think this? Because by chance I logged back into the website to get some historic information, only to find out there was a new post requesting additional funding for the possible/probable UTT appeal. I never recieved the usual email making me aware of such an update.

How many more LA members who chose not to join Armadillo are in the same position, and have no idea the request is out there. Quite I few I would guess.

Which shows how much of a mess of your "friends" have made on what should be the easiest of tasks - keeping an email list and sending a single email to keep those who have previously paid money informed. I think that might have been rather useful when you wanted to identify people who may wish to contribute more money.

[huntingground]

The first para completely made up? So you don't think that the the twitter posts earlier this year by Armadillo Tax Support, Saleos , Gordon Berry Wealth Agent and Phil Manley where they were attacking WTT's/Big Group approach (though usually carefully avoiding naming them), and retweeting each others posts, before setting up a similar business model themselves of monthly subscriptions was coincidence ?

Bravo Albert, nail on head.