LCAG - JR decision

[DealorNoDeal]

Robert Venables QC, the man referenced in almost every scheme I think I've ever seen, advising people to not give him money.

He's certainly gained some notoriety.

Try googling: robert venables hartnett

[dammit chloe]

He's certainly gained some notoriety.

Try googling: robert venables hartnett

I believe he is a hugely unpleasant ****. However, the alternative was to just do nothing via legal route unfortunately. Just like other HMRC weapons such as APNs, once given any legal recourse is deliberately, virtually non-existent.

[Superfly]

With great powers comes great responsibility

As much as I abhor the man, I believe RVQC is a quite a talented tax barrister.

Unfortunately, he has made himself out as a taxi cab for hire to the highest bidder, that coupled with the fact that he has no principles makes him a rather unsavoury fellow. Shame.

[BrilloPad]

As much as I abhor the man, I believe RVQC is a quite a talented tax barrister.

Unfortunately, he has made himself out as a taxi cab for hire to the highest bidder, that coupled with the fact that he has no principles makes him a rather unsavoury fellow. Shame.

IMO the issue is the scheme providers that selectively quote him. Its like that original DTA scheme - the QC opinion made clear it would not work, but it was selectively quoted....

[RickG]

Given how badly RV's reputation has been tarnished (perhaps through no fault of his own - maybe he has been misquoted) - you would think he'd want to restore it by offering his services for free on the matter. Yet I've seen nothing from him which shows any contrition for the damage his name and opinion has caused to thousands of people.

[webberg]

Don't get distracted by the personalities or the history.

You are not going to change either.

To nobody's great surprise, the JR has achieved very little other than to reinforce that:

1. Government is entitled to make law that is fair to the general population even if it discriminates against a small minority

2. Money is not a possession that Human Rights law has any jurisdiction over.

The loan charge always was a distraction from the requirement to agree the substantive tax position.

Yes it may be a blunt instrument to batter people into a "voluntary" settlement (a point not taken in the JR) and yes it may cause such a cash flow impact that an irreversible insolvency results (a point not taken in the JR) and yes the working of the "comprehensive" double tax provisions are such that it is entirely possible to pay more loan charge than actual liability (a point taken but buried in the "this is such an obvious point that the barristers decided not to state the obvious").

The need to resolve the tax situation in each year of receipt was present before the loan charge raised it's head, has been present all the way through and is still there.

Whilst this is apparently a surprise to many (including advisers) now that the last of the JR's is over, time to go back to resolving the real issue.

[DealorNoDeal]

Do LCAG intend to appeal?

If they do, it might be worth putting out a request for witness statements from people who are impacted by LC19. If possible from anyone who has attempted suicide, or from the families of those who have taken their own lives.

A few hundred distressing witness statements might give appeal judges pause for thought. It would certainly counter what the High Court judge had to say.

It comes nowhere near fundamentally undermining the financial position of all those who are affected by it, and there was no evidence to suggest that it does.

[webberg]

Do LCAG intend to appeal?

If they do, it might be worth putting out a request for witness statements from people who are impacted by LC19. If possible from anyone who has attempted suicide, or from the families of those who have taken their own lives.

A few hundred distressing witness statements might give appeal judges pause for thought. It would certainly counter what the High Court judge had to say.

You're confusing justice with the law.

The law is now clear. There are no grounds for a JR and whilst an appeal is possible, a higher Court may well refuse to hear it.

Even if there was an appeal, THE UNDERLYING TAX LIABILITY is still there.

I've said before that the loan charge is essentially an APN for all those years/schemes which did not have a DOTAS disclosure. It's a mechanism by which HMRC claims to be able to hold the tax money in dispute and which therefore is a device to pressure people into - if not settling - then at least not litigating.

Time to move on.

If you are litigating now, you need a reason why the loan charge will NOT apply.

If you are of the view it does, then settle.

We're not and we carry on.

[DealorNoDeal]

You're confusing justice with the law.

The law is now clear. There are no grounds for a JR and whilst an appeal is possible, a higher Court may well refuse to hear it.

If you're bringing a JR on human rights grounds, then it is all about justice.

To stand any chance whatsoever of engaging A1P1 you would have to show that LC19 imposes a disproportionate and excessive burden on the individuals affected. The bar for this is high when it comes to tax, and especially so if it involves tax avoidance.

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/G...ocol_1_ENG.pdf

"117. In order to be compatible with the general rule set forth in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of “possessions”, apart from being prescribed by law and in the public interest, must strike a “fair balance” between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights.

118. In other words, in cases involving an alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court must ascertain whether by reason of the State’s action or inaction the person concerned had to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden."

[lowpaidworker]

I think the only way the LC will be resolved is through Parliament and what the LCAG and APPG are doing. However as Webberg has pointed out (many a time) this does not resolve the tax dispute. Might make the LC perspective from roughly 2017.

I think if that happens then maybe HMRC will come to a negotiating table of sort or even maybe the Govt will pressure them too.

However that opinion was pre COVID19.... this lockdown will have done irreparable damage to the economy that is going to require some considerable tax raising.