Hoey - next steps

[Saleos]

As Iliketax has pointed out the FTT in Higgs makes it quite clear that the purported discretion in disapplying the PAYE regs is not restricted to end users. Keith Gordon, for the taxpayer, had sought to argue that the discretion had effectively relieved the wrong entity; he argued that the liability properly fell upon the agency. Presumably this line of argument is very similar to the “other weapons” alluded to by WebberG.

The FTT concluded that “ the subject of the discretion, i.e. “the payer” as described in that section has a naturally wide meaning and may refer to any person within the ambit of the discretion. That includes the appellants and it is not restricted to the “end users”.

As it stands it does not therefore matter one jot upon whom the obligation to account for PAYE HMRC fell. The discretion is so broad (and unfettered) that it can relieve “any person” within its ambit. Indeed that can be the only logical conclusion to the illogical one that the discretion exists in the form HMRC believe.

So Higgs (& Hoey) currently hole a resolution strategy based entirely on arguing that loans were income all along but that the tax should be pursued from an(y)other party.

I am more than 65% confident someone is selling the Emperor’s new clothes.

I don't want to get involved with elephants but I was wondering about this bit. When I read it, I assume that there was a typo but maybe you think not. How can a non-UK employer who operates PAYE on a voluntary basis have a PAYE liability in the first place?



I didn't understand why you thought that the point had been limited either (with my emphasis from Higgs):



What am I missing?

[DealorNoDeal]

Its remarkable what lengths he will go to avoid answering questions. I note the dreadful maths of ns1 also.

Firstly there are 3k people in BG which means they make over 50k per MONTH. They've been running it for 3 years and also that's before they start on the 'joining fee'.

Add it together we have millions. And again....ask yourselves....what has Webber ACTUALLY delivered apart from years of false hope and now when queried on technicalities runs for the hills. Just like he did before.

It's 5 years since he started "promoting/advertising" it here:

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...big-group.html

[webberg]

If webberg really doesn't have anything then he won't be able to keep the smoke and mirrors going forever.

Of course, if he's getting £18+vat from several hundred BG members every month, I can see why he might try.

Cynical, moi?

If you're going to criticise, please gets the facts rights.

It's £15 plus VAT.

[webberg]

Its remarkable what lengths he will go to avoid answering questions. I note the dreadful maths of ns1 also.

Firstly there are 3k people in BG which means they make over 50k per MONTH. They've been running it for 3 years and also that's before they start on the 'joining fee'.

Add it together we have millions. And again....ask yourselves....what has Webber ACTUALLY delivered apart from years of false hope and now when queried on technicalities runs for the hills. Just like he did before.

If you're going to criticise at least try to get the numbers right please.

If there were 3k people (there are not), at £15 that's £45k, not "over £50k".

We've been running it around 5 years.

Please explain when "before" I have run for the hills?

[jamesbrown]

I am more than 65% confident someone is selling the Emperor’s new clothes.

That sounds like a pretty serious accusation to me.

[bobbydazzler75]

If you're going to criticise at least try to get the numbers right please.

If there were 3k people (there are not), at £15 that's £45k, not "over £50k".

We've been running it around 5 years.

Please explain when "before" I have run for the hills?

Well, we could always discuss Elysian Fuels and where the £800k crowdfunding money at Rebus went?
Though before that, perhaps just answer the questions faced by saleos which you seem v keen to avoid.

[webberg]

Well, we could always discuss Elysian Fuels and where the £800k crowdfunding money at Rebus went?
Though before that, perhaps just answer the questions faced by saleos which you seem v keen to avoid.

Happy to discuss both the above but not on this thread.

[webberg]

I see the thread here continues to attract comments.

I have a responsibility to my clients. In my view I would be failing in that if I discuss in open forum why we and our legal team consider that the decisions in Hoey, FTT and JR, and Higgs are poor ones that deserve to be heard by higher tiers. Our team remains of the view that both in terms of the legal principles and detail of the arrangements, the FTT decisions are poor ones.

I have offered “Team Hoey” a meeting with us and our barristers. I am also happy to virtually discuss the situation with RPC. We know the team there reasonably well and have spoken before on these matters. That offer remains on the table and I will be contacting Saleos via his email today to repeat that.

Further, if there are other people here with an interest and who we can rely upon to observe what will be Chatham House rules in the meeting, we will accommodate them. Being frank, I’m thinking of “Iliketax”, ETC Tax (with whom we already correspond) and any others with suitable professional experience. I will PM some of those I think have the necessary attributes to extend the invitation.

Given the level this thread has descended to I will not be making further contributions here.

[Delendog]

I see the thread here continues to attract comments.

I have a responsibility to my clients. In my view I would be failing in that if I discuss in open forum why we and our legal team consider that the decisions in Hoey, FTT and JR, and Higgs are poor ones that deserve to be heard by higher tiers. Our team remains of the view that both in terms of the legal principles and detail of the arrangements, the FTT decisions are poor ones.

I have offered “Team Hoey” a meeting with us and our barristers. I am also happy to virtually discuss the situation with RPC. We know the team there reasonably well and have spoken before on these matters. That offer remains on the table and I will be contacting Saleos via his email today to repeat that.

Further, if there are other people here with an interest and who we can rely upon to observe what will be Chatham House rules in the meeting, we will accommodate them. Being frank, I’m thinking of “Iliketax”, ETC Tax (with whom we already correspond) and any others with suitable professional experience. I will PM some of those I think have the necessary attributes to extend the invitation.

Given the level this thread has descended to I will not be making further contributions here.

Yes this seriously needs to be done. We all know that HMRC/MP's and the Courts appear to be judging "loans" using today's standards of avoidance perception so why would that also not apply against any argument looking at the actual words of the law.

[bobbydazzler75]

I see the thread here continues to attract comments.

I have a responsibility to my clients. In my view I would be failing in that if I discuss in open forum why we and our legal team consider that the decisions in Hoey, FTT and JR, and Higgs are poor ones that deserve to be heard by higher tiers. Our team remains of the view that both in terms of the legal principles and detail of the arrangements, the FTT decisions are poor ones.

I have offered “Team Hoey” a meeting with us and our barristers. I am also happy to virtually discuss the situation with RPC. We know the team there reasonably well and have spoken before on these matters. That offer remains on the table and I will be contacting Saleos via his email today to repeat that.

Further, if there are other people here with an interest and who we can rely upon to observe what will be Chatham House rules in the meeting, we will accommodate them. Being frank, I’m thinking of “Iliketax”, ETC Tax (with whom we already correspond) and any others with suitable professional experience. I will PM some of those I think have the necessary attributes to extend the invitation.

Given the level this thread has descended to I will not be making further contributions here.

Hes now decided not to answer any queries I see as he has a 'responsibility to my clients"

What a pile of tosh. As saleos stated earlier, skeleton arguments would mean hmrc see these so called "secret weapons" in advance anyway.
As for begging other firms for help now...pfft. what a joke.

5 years of taking millions of pounds, changing arguments numerous times as each one was found out and now they can't answer basic questions....but everyone keep paying monthly fees please.
Also he asked for examples when he's ran to the hills before. I offered two and then suddenly he can't discuss them either.

Nevermind, the future will prove point. Its a shame rest of you all don't let his own history teach you that now.