• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

LCAG - JR decision

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by DealorNoDeal View Post
    Horses for courses. He's a tax barrister. If you're challenging the law (tax or otherwise) on human rights grounds then you should really use a public law barrister.
    I think part of the problem in these is that the judge too a subjective approach rather than a law approach. Some of her judgements flew completely in the face of legal precedent. She simply made up her own interpretation. I think RVQC, from what I can tell, was underprepared but hard to fight against someone who just makes stuff up on a whim.

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by lowpaidworker View Post
      Thanks for the explanation. Conceptually I understand. But from the uneducated in Tax Law it seems we are chucking good money at these JRs and keep losing. RVQC by all accounts got smashed in this case. He's supposed to one the best but he didnt even get close.

      Seems to me only a technicality will win this like something being out of time or stale but that is not going to affect everyone but just just specfic people. The LC is never going to be defeated. Its law. Only the MPs who might decide it was a bit too aggressive can change it not a JR.
      As I have said time and time again, the loan charge is a distraction from the key task of agreeing the final liability.

      It may be seen as intimidatory or bullying or coercive but at the end of the day, it's a Government making law that it is entitled to make.

      SO you are correct in that many JR's are hopeless cases. They serve as a useful focus for groups looking to make a point and as part of a wider strategy they have a part to play. But as a stand alone single use defence against the tax charge, it was always a long shot.

      We have not and with one exception may never use JR in our strategy.

      That exception is not relevant here.

      I do though wonder why the following arguments have not been used:

      1. The loan charge is seeking to tax something that is already taxable - what is the justification for that?
      2. The loan charge could mean that a taxpayer is "out of the money" until the final position on liability is known. Why is that fair?
      3. What happens if the loan charge exceeds the final liability and is not repaid. A tax charge that cannot be repaid is not tax, it's a fine or penalty.
      4. In many cases it is debatable as to whether a loan ever existed. The definition of loan is so wide as to be unusable?
      5. How can justice be served if a loan charge can be raised by HMRC and the taxpayer has no recourse?

      I'm sure better minds than mine have considered (and rejected) these points, and certainly we will not be running them.
      Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

      (No, me neither).

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by dammit chloe View Post
        I think part of the problem in these is that the judge too a subjective approach rather than a law approach. Some of her judgements flew completely in the face of legal precedent. She simply made up her own interpretation. I think RVQC, from what I can tell, was underprepared but hard to fight against someone who just makes stuff up on a whim.
        In terms of the DTA precedent, she was spot on. Sadly.

        Comment


          #34
          Rory Mullan comments on Loan Charge decision | Tax Chambers

          Bear in mind that the QC here, Rory Mullan, was the advocate in Hoey.

          In that case (in my opinion) the presentation of the tax arguments was at once very precise but at the same time ignored some very obvious targets and helpful arguments.

          I'll not speculate as to why as the QC will ultimately be guided by his clients.

          useful thoughts anyway.
          Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

          (No, me neither).

          Comment

          Working...
          X