Many are being sold hope; a guarded resolution strategy, shielded from peer review. It is suggested by some so blind they won’t see that I support sensible settlement terms to somehow protect “promoters”. Nonsesence & lies. I do so because....
The idea that RFC could mean that the LC could not [also] apply was first discussed by me with Counsel in Autumn of 2017. See this extract from an opinion dated Oct 17. 
That opinion was shared with clients before they were asked to make a final decision on contributing to that legal challenge. Sadly, on 22 Nov 2017, HMRC announced they would change the retrospective #LoanCharge retrospectively. 👇🏻 from opinion of 1.12.17
And so by March 2018 the argument that RFC could somehow ride to the rescue of POST DR schemes, those within Part 7A ITEPA 2003, was laid to rest, not by me, but by Counsel. I agreed however wholly with the analysis and conclusion.
“a strong likelihood that a Tribunal will treat these changes as determinative “. How likely is it then that another would give a 65% chance of success? Have you seen such an opinion? Does it address the 22 Nov 17 change?
Alternatively, could it be argued that the credit that we argue in Hoey is available (for the tax that ought to have been deducted) is also available for POST DR schemes too? Well, not if it wasn’t paid. David Pett was also clearly of that view in recent LTS webinar. Because.....
The payment condition in section 554Z5(4) is satisfied if, at the time the relevant step is taken (5.4.19) the earlier tax liability (RFC) has become due and payable and has either been PAID IN FULL or the person liable has agreed terms with HMRC for payment of the liability.
So what of mythical HR disclosure? So compelling that it was not uttered in LCAG LC JR by the very barrister that devised it? How can words in the white space of a return succeed where Judicial Review failed?So many questions, no answers.Yours for a % of your loans.Defence extra.
Of course others might disagree. Make a different assessment of prospects. But is their reasoning transparent? Have counter arguments been countered? Litigating is expensive & not free of risk. Do you know what they are? People should make decisions with their eyes open.
I am unwilling to lead people up the garden path whilst picking their pockets. I accept that for some even a lost cause is better than no cause at all. But suggestions by the misled that I advocate a different resolution strategy because of self interest is grossly false. DYOR.
