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

[DealorNoDeal]

I doubt the Court of Appeal will be the final arbiter, and this is almost certain to end up in the Supreme Court.

I hope Hoey wins but I fear it may turn out to be another case of the establishment closing ranks. With anything involving tax avoidance, Judges seem to have an uncanny way of finding in favour of HMRC. (Call me cynical but can Judges really be impartial when their salaries are paid from taxes, and they haven't had a pay increase in years?)

Anyway, I wish Hoey and the team all the best.

[dammit chloe]

you talked to many lawyers? It's not cheap in my experience. £200 an hour for a half competent junior.

Think you may have missed the point there bud.

[Lance]

Eek right! Eek never wrong!

It's more ironic that this may be the case that saves WTT blushes with a cheap exit strategy. Pre-2010 at least. Talk is cheap but the courts are where all the words are tested.

you talked to many lawyers? It's not cheap in my experience. £200 an hour for a half competent junior.

[dammit chloe]

Eek, Why cant you just celebrate success and try be happy, even for a little moment without spitting poison and trolling the forum?

As it happens you are wrong, you clearly missed this bit below, but why care about facts when your opinion counts for everything;

We are able to confirm that the appeal will proceed in line with the advice of retained Counsel, Rory Mullan QC even if agreement cannot ultimately be reached with WTT.

Eek right! Eek never wrong!

It's more ironic that this may be the case that saves WTT blushes with a cheap exit strategy. Pre-2010 at least. Talk is cheap but the courts are where all the words are tested.

[luxCon]

It’s ironic that the only reason this appeal is going ahead is thanks to the people you chased away form here

Eek, Why cant you just celebrate success and try be happy, even for a little moment without spitting poison and trolling the forum?

As it happens you are wrong, you clearly missed this bit below, but why care about facts when your opinion counts for everything;

We are able to confirm that the appeal will proceed in line with the advice of retained Counsel, Rory Mullan QC even if agreement cannot ultimately be reached with WTT.

[eek]

It’s ironic that the only reason this appeal is going ahead is thanks to the people you chased away form here

[luxCon]

Update from Hoey;

https://www.gofundme.com/f/hoey-cour...ource=customer

Updates (4)

7 MAY 2021by Stephen Hoey, OrganiserHoey – Funding update

I am delighted to say that we have now raised sufficient funds to proceed with an appeal in the Hoey case.

The current funding position is:

Contributions received since appeal launched (16.11.2020) - £ 110,000

Total held on RPC Client Account - £ 196,000

Funds allocated for potential adverse costs re APN JR (£50,000)

Net funds held on RPC client account - £ 146,000

GoFundMe contributions - £ 33,000

Total funds held - £ 179,000

The quote provided by RPC for their own costs and those of Counsel was £160,000 (plus VAT if applicable).

An additional sum of £80,000 is required to cover the risk of any adverse cost award should Mr Hoey’s appeal fail.

We are pleased to say that WTT Consulting have agreed to commit sufficient 3rd party funds to cover that adverse cost risk. Discussions between RPC & WTT regarding the precise way in which those funds are to be held are ongoing. We are very grateful to all who have supported Mr Hoey over the years.

Fundamentally, it is vital to ALL legal challenges of DR schemes (and the Loan Charge) that HMRC are not permitted to retrospectively exercise a discretion that would allow them to dispense with any need to assess employers, agencies or end users, indeed anyone at all; to dispense with all time limits and taxpayer safeguards and which would allow HMRC to pursue individuals “without temporal limitation”. We are therefore grateful to those who have provided funds to WTT and for their agreement to utilise them in this way.

It would also be apposite for me to again say thank all those who have contributed historically to get the case this far. More than 1,000 individuals have done so over the years and significant, five & six figure sums have been contributed by former intermediaries to get us this far. Mr Hoey is also grateful to all.

We are able to confirm that the appeal will proceed in line with the advice of retained Counsel, Rory Mullan QC even if agreement cannot ultimately be reached with WTT.

The necessary appeal documents are in the process of being drafted and we will now focus on ensuring that this dispute is resolved as quickly as possible in the most appropriate forum.

We will update Armadillo subscribers further on that as matters progress

[nickyboyc]

Has anyone asked hmrc for their apn money back yet?

[DealorNoDeal]

Is this analysis correct as to why Lancashire succeeded on the PAYE point and Hoey & Higgs failed?

I would have thought that, if Hoey and Higgs were appealing years prior to 2010, the 4-year time limit would also have applied in their cases?

https://www.etctax.co.uk/blog-news/t...t-make-a-right

[nickyboyc]

Has anyone already or planning to contact hmrc and request repayment of apns paid towards Pre dr loans?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.